When do see a significant increase in triple A price?

[apalisoc_9]

Maybe Elnono can give some answers on this one...

We don't have as many console and even pc games today..( not conunting indie) because to no one surprise triple A games are getting ridiculously expensive to make so the room for innovation and risk is minimal in many ways.

Are online transactions doing enough to earn games a profit? What about great games like Rise of The Tomb Raider? Great story but also one of the shittiest online modes ever..Could they have even made tomb raider rotr without mircosoftbhelping them?

It must have caused them north of 100$ million to develop and market that game..I cant think of a scenario where they actually made money even if they sold 12 million copies..

[baseline bum]

Battlefield 1 is a $110 game, just like Battlefield 4 was. That's pretty significant IMO. Full games mostly cost $90 now.

[apalisoc_9]

I bought uncharted 4 for 79$ canadian..

90$ can't possibly be on the average end of pricing. Those are mostly games with "extra" content...

Like I bought nba2k17 at release for 80$ canadian too...

Most basic prices are still under 80$ ..80$ canadian is like what 60$...

Triple A games are just getting riskier by day with minimal returns on average..unless its a blockbuster game, it wont generate profit.

No wonder failbox, ps4 and pc have had very little triple A games in the last two years..even in comparison to ps3 games.

Its only going to get worse.

[ElNono]

Honestly, I can't answer authoritatively from the financials/production side, but technologically speaking, I don't really think it costs more to make a AAA game now that it did 5 years ago (you could stretch it to 10 years too, tbh).

This isn't the 80' or 90's (or even early 2000s) where the core hardware tech would look abysmally different every two years (or even year to year). The CPU has been fairly stuck since Ivy Bridge. Some will say since Core 2 in early 2000s.

Probably the biggest improvements have come from GPU and largely SSDs. But even then, for GPUs, you're talking more draw distance, incremental improvement in shaders, maybe higher res, etc. Nothing disruptive or paradigm-shifting.

VR and 4k are the only techs that are basically begging for better hardware, and VR is the only one that offers a 'different' (not necessarily better) experience.

For games, nothing has really changed in production from 7.1 audio, motion capture, 3d modelling (which can be tessellated further to increase resolution), art, etc. The scope of games, generally speaking, are actually shorter than way back when.

The industry has adapted from being a toy-type of industry (back in the day videogames basically replaced toys for kids, distribution/shell space were the premium to achieve mass market, and were priced as such), to a more niche industry targeted an older gamer demographic, trying to move towards a more of a rentier model, with episodic releases. There's no hard bets anymore, you get a semi-beta game for release, which if it does good, will receive some updates and further contents through DLC, but if it shits the bed, the plug can be pulled quickly.

Nintendo is the only company that kept targeting the toy-type segment, foregoing much of AAA releases in the process, but kids found in mobile a cheap and convenient alternative.

Indie is good for the curious or the guys with a passion for making games, but it has largely failed to create a new Naughty Dog or BioWare or Bungie. Fresh studios with fresh franchises. The marketing isn't there, and the money isn't there either.

It's unfortunate, because we're going to continue to see this entrenchment into niche and scarcity will bring up prices, along with a price to bear mentality, as opposed to a mass market appeal mentality. The thing is, there might not be a mass market (at least not at the scope of the 80's) anymore.

[Reck]

The simple answer is don't make shit games.

I'm actually not at all concerned with video games getting pricier. That's not what will kill developers and the studios. It's the greediness.

The releasing games incomplete and the unending DLCs is what ultimately break the camels back.

[apalisoc_9]

Honestly, I can't answer authoritatively from the financials/production side, but technologically speaking, I don't really think it costs more to make a AAA game now that it did 5 years ago (you could stretch it to 10 years too, tbh).

This isn't the 80' or 90's (or even early 2000s) where the core hardware tech would look abysmally different every two years (or even year to year). The CPU has been fairly stuck since Ivy Bridge. Some will say since Core 2 in early 2000s.

Probably the biggest improvements have come from GPU and largely SSDs. But even then, for GPUs, you're talking more draw distance, incremental improvement in shaders, maybe higher res, etc. Nothing disruptive or paradigm-shifting.

VR and 4k are the only techs that are basically begging for better hardware, and VR is the only one that offers a 'different' (not necessarily better) experience.

For games, nothing has really changed in production from 7.1 audio, motion capture, 3d modelling (which can be tessellated further to increase resolution), art, etc. The scope of games, generally speaking, are actually shorter than way back when.

The industry has adapted from being a toy-type of industry (back in the day videogames basically replaced toys for kids, distribution/shell space were the premium to achieve mass market, and were priced as such), to a more niche industry targeted an older gamer demographic, trying to move towards a more of a rentier model, with episodic releases. There's no hard bets anymore, you get a semi-beta game for release, which if it does good, will receive some updates and further contents through DLC, but if it shits the bed, the plug can be pulled quickly.

Nintendo is the only company that kept targeting the toy-type segment, foregoing much of AAA releases in the process, but kids found in mobile a cheap and convenient alternative.

Indie is good for the curious or the guys with a passion for making games, but it has largely failed to create a new Naughty Dog or BioWare or Bungie. Fresh studios with fresh franchises. The marketing isn't there, and the money isn't there either.

It's unfortunate, because we're going to continue to see this entrenchment into niche and scarcity will bring up prices, along with a price to bear mentality, as opposed to a mass market appeal mentality. The thing is, there might not be a mass market (at least not at the scope of the 80's) anymore.

Thanks for the insight, nono. Really had no idea. I had high hopes for Video gaming in the early 00's as a highschool student. I figured once, the 90s generation grew up, add that with the 80s and the newer generations should be more exposed to gaming that it would rich mainstream level. I did a survey in HS back in 2003 about the numbers of video game players, and I remember at least 80% of male students owned either a playstation or played video games on PC but I can't remember a female friend or acquaintance that was into video games.

My nephew did a Survey of his own last year in his middle-school and I was surprised at the lower number of players. I'm not sure if Mobile gaming or just better social online platforms today has any effect..I'm not even sure if 10-15 years olds today player less video games..but and it could be the sample size of 150+ is way too small to really make conclusion but that was honestly surprising.



The simple answer is don't make shit games.

I'm actually not at all concerned with video games getting pricier. That's not what will kill developers and the studios. It's the greediness.

The releasing games incomplete and the unending DLCs is what ultimately break the camels back.

You think people want to make shit games? :lol

It's probably a lot more complex than that.

[DJR210]

Games aren't going to get pricier, there would be no reason to justify a price hike. Especially considering the increase in digital downloads is saving the publishers roughly 6 dollars per game on packaging (case, printing, disc) they are getting that 6 bucks they saved straight to the profit pile. Add on what baseline bum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=131) mentioned w/ most top games costing 90 bucks after factoring in the season pass, and they are making their money.

If a studio chooses to cut into their profit by hiring more employees for the project, that's on them. Either way, like Reck (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14412) said you make good games that your fanbase want you will do just fine.

[Reck]

You think people want to make shit games? :lol

It's probably a lot more complex than that.

They do when they try to niche their product.

Then you add the component of meeting deadlines..expectations etc.

Take for example that Duke Nukem game. Took them like 10 years to make and they still ended up releasing a piece of shit game that was full of bugs and outdated jokes. :lol

[Cry Havoc]

It's unfortunate, because we're going to continue to see this entrenchment into niche and scarcity will bring up prices, along with a price to bear mentality, as opposed to a mass market appeal mentality. The thing is, there might not be a mass market (at least not at the scope of the 80's) anymore.

I'm not sure I buy this. In fact, I think there's data to suggest just the opposite. PS4 and PC sales are doing very well these days, although the XBone looks like a relative failure after their numerous bungling of their fanbase prior to launch.

GTA V at launch generated the largest multimedia sales in one day of any entertainment product in history -- north of $500,000,000.

I think if anything we'll see gaming further integrated into the public consciousness. Steam has given the space for indie developers to make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars on a product that is still in development -- you can't deny that the indie market in gaming is better than it's ever been, and that's typically where you see the innovation. I think the market is VASTLY healthier than it was in the 80s -- there's no taboo about gaming anymore, and anytime I walk into a doctors office I see a child gaming or watching Minecraft videos etc.


They do when they try to niche their product.

Then you add the component of meeting deadlines..expectations etc.

Take for example that Duke Nukem game. Took them like 10 years to make and they still ended up releasing a piece of shit game that was full of bugs and outdated jokes. :lol

That is largely a result of shareholder demand. NO one wants to make a terrible game. Some companies are fine with producing a very bland game if they think it will sell, but no one wants a terrible game on their credits. The team that built Duke Nukem got it shoved into their hands at the last moment with an expectation of a game that launching by a very specific date. Most games that come out and are broken or terribly bland are a result of time and contractual deadlines. I have a friend who works on The Sims and says the pressure on their teams to create specific features by "x" date is extreme -- think about coding for 18 hours straight, getting 6 hours off, and then pulling another 18 hour shift. It's definitely something that's starting to change in the gaming industry, but in the meantime leads to broken half finished products with teams assigned to different elements and never having the ability to communicate with each other to make them work cohesively.

[baseline bum]

I'm not sure I buy this. In fact, I think there's data to suggest just the opposite. PS4 and PC sales are doing very well these days, although the XBone looks like a relative failure after their numerous bungling of their fanbase prior to launch.

GTA V at launch generated the largest multimedia sales in one day of any entertainment product in history -- north of $500,000,000.

I think if anything we'll see gaming further integrated into the public consciousness. Steam has given the space for indie developers to make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars on a product that is still in development -- you can't deny that the indie market in gaming is better than it's ever been, and that's typically where you see the innovation. I think the market is VASTLY healthier than it was in the 80s -- there's no taboo about gaming anymore, and anytime I walk into a doctors office I see a child gaming or watching Minecraft videos etc.

I agree, gaming being a niche market doesn't make sense when it has dwarfed Hollywood for years when it comes to revenue and profits. But I will admit I'm scared of mobile and the free to play model killing the golden goose. You have kids are growing up with these free games on mobile that nickel and dime you to win and maybe in 10 years when they start entering the job market that's going to be what they expect. You can already see this with the poor sales of Super Mario Run. That's frightening. At least one good thing about a Trump presidency (and I can't think of any others tbh) might be that killing off net neutrality will put a huge roadblock up for game streaming. I hate the idea of the subscription model ElNono is talking about.

Also, GTA V made like $815,000,000 on day one, and one billion on that opening weekend. No way that's niche to make that many sales.

[baseline bum]

I have a friend who works on The Sims and says the pressure on their teams to create specific features by "x" date is extreme -- think about coding for 18 hours straight, getting 6 hours off, and then pulling another 18 hour shift. It's definitely something that's starting to change in the gaming industry, but in the meantime leads to broken half finished products with teams assigned to different elements and never having the ability to communicate with each other to make them work cohesively.

LOL EA. I know people who have worked for them and it sounds like fucking hell.

[Cry Havoc]

LOL EA. I know people who have worked for them and it sounds like fucking hell.

I was just singling EA out here but wasn't meant to. His particular division doesn't work crazy hours like that, as they are mostly on the patching side. But some of the devs do, although from what I've been hearing at EA they've been REALLY cutting back on that kind of insanity, but a lot of publishers are worse.

http://www.pcgamer.com/4a-games-working-conditions/

On top of that, Rubin laments the "irrational requirement of THQ's original producers to fit multiplayer and co-op into the same deadline and budget."

It gets worse. According to Rubin, the team "sat on folding wedding chairs, literally elbow to elbow at card tables in what looks more like a packed grade school cafeteria than a development studio." Dev kits and high-end PCs had to be smuggled into Ukraine in backpacks to avoid the sticky hands of "thieving customs officials." Pile on frequent power outages and broken government-run heating which frequently led to below-freezing working conditions...

[baseline bum]

I was just singling EA out here but wasn't meant to. His particular division doesn't work crazy hours like that, as they are mostly on the patching side. But some of the devs do, although from what I've been hearing at EA they've been REALLY cutting back on that kind of insanity, but a lot of publishers are worse.

http://www.pcgamer.com/4a-games-working-conditions/

On top of that, Rubin laments the "irrational requirement of THQ's original producers to fit multiplayer and co-op into the same deadline and budget."

It gets worse. According to Rubin, the team "sat on folding wedding chairs, literally elbow to elbow at card tables in what looks more like a packed grade school cafeteria than a development studio." Dev kits and high-end PCs had to be smuggled into Ukraine in backpacks to avoid the sticky hands of "thieving customs officials." Pile on frequent power outages and broken government-run heating which frequently led to below-freezing working conditions...

I knew a guy at THQ too and man, he said he wouldn't go home for days sometimes. And he was just a tester. :lol

[ElNono]

I'm not sure I buy this. In fact, I think there's data to suggest just the opposite. PS4 and PC sales are doing very well these days, although the XBone looks like a relative failure after their numerous bungling of their fanbase prior to launch.

GTA V at launch generated the largest multimedia sales in one day of any entertainment product in history -- north of $500,000,000.

I think if anything we'll see gaming further integrated into the public consciousness. Steam has given the space for indie developers to make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars on a product that is still in development -- you can't deny that the indie market in gaming is better than it's ever been, and that's typically where you see the innovation. I think the market is VASTLY healthier than it was in the 80s -- there's no taboo about gaming anymore, and anytime I walk into a doctors office I see a child gaming or watching Minecraft videos etc.


I agree, gaming being a niche market doesn't make sense when it has dwarfed Hollywood for years when it comes to revenue and profits. But I will admit I'm scared of mobile and the free to play model killing the golden goose. You have kids are growing up with these free games on mobile that nickel and dime you to win and maybe in 10 years when they start entering the job market that's going to be what they expect. You can already see this with the poor sales of Super Mario Run. That's frightening. At least one good thing about a Trump presidency (and I can't think of any others tbh) might be that killing off net neutrality will put a huge roadblock up for game streaming. I hate the idea of the subscription model ElNono is talking about.

Also, GTA V made like $815,000,000 on day one, and one billion on that opening weekend. No way that's niche to make that many sales.

I'm talking taking risks, new studios with new franchises, etc. It's clear people will pay whatever they have to for known franchises, even nostalgia releases.

If you think about it, those established franchises are the ones that get the golden goose going. GTA V putting a cellphone in the game with text messages and what not is what tries to draw the younger generation. But you need to already know what GTA is, and that comes from the usual gamers, aged gamers.

There's really little competition going on in most of all areas right now, and when a new franchise comes in, it normally comes from one of the big studios. You just don't see many studios rising from the bottom and making it big league. Indie isn't producing them (at least at a good rate) right now. That dwindles the creative pool, makes companies stick with the cookie-cut stuff. I bet GTA X is going to rock and Red Dead Redemption 21 is gonna be dope, but there's only so many Rockstars, Naughty Dog, Rare, etc.

You see the new franchise attempts: Days Gone, Horizon Zero Down... they're all coming from the same old studios, usually owned by some bigger corp (Sony, Microsoft, EA, Zenimax, etc). That's the "model" now.

Rockstar used to be DMA Design, which used to do games for the Amiga. They go that way back. Rare from the Super Nintendo. And even some big league studios like Konami going under.

The way i see it, the fact that now you can build using the Unreal Engine basically for free (at least during development) might help bring up quality studios forward, that's the saving grace. But as long as you have big corp looking for immediate bucks over your shoulder, there's going to be less risks and more cookie-cut stuff, and that sucks.

[ElNono]

Also, when you talking Hollywood, don't forget that movie prices (not theater releases, which is a social experience on it's own) have actually plummeted. A DVD movie used to be closer to $40 at some point, you can now buy BluRay for $25.

This is due to the reality of competition, with streaming services, people that just don't care for release date and will wait it out on HBO, etc.

[DJR210]

I used to work at EA as a custodian. They used to beat me, and management would curse at me and spit on me when I cleaned their offices. I was forced to work mandatory overtime, minus overtime wages. Other than that it was a great place to work.

[DJR210]

A DVD movie used to be closer to $40 at some point, you can now buy BluRay for $25

TF you talking about? Is the market that different where you're at? A DVD for 40 bucks? Damn

[Cry Havoc]

I'm talking taking risks, new studios with new franchises, etc. It's clear people will pay whatever they have to for known franchises, even nostalgia releases.

If you think about it, those established franchises are the ones that get the golden goose going. GTA V putting a cellphone in the game with text messages and what not is what tries to draw the younger generation. But you need to already know what GTA is, and that comes from the usual gamers, aged gamers.

There's really little competition going on in most of all areas right now, and when a new franchise comes in, it normally comes from one of the big studios. You just don't see many studios rising from the bottom and making it big league. Indie isn't producing them (at least at a good rate) right now. That dwindles the creative pool, makes companies stick with the cookie-cut stuff. I bet GTA X is going to rock and Red Dead Redemption 21 is gonna be dope, but there's only so many Rockstars, Naughty Dog, Rare, etc.

You see the new franchise attempts: Days Gone, Horizon Zero Down... they're all coming from the same old studios, usually owned by some bigger corp (Sony, Microsoft, EA, Zenimax, etc). That's the "model" now.

Rockstar used to be DMA Design, which used to do games for the Amiga. They go that way back. Rare from the Super Nintendo. And even some big league studios like Konami going under.

The way i see it, the fact that now you can build using the Unreal Engine basically for free (at least during development) might help bring up quality studios forward, that's the saving grace. But as long as you have big corp looking for immediate bucks over your shoulder, there's going to be less risks and more cookie-cut stuff, and that sucks.

I don't know that I agree, considering one of the richest people in gaming is the creator of Minecraft and he literally became a billionaire from nothing with no major publisher behind him for most of the development.

There are a lot of success stories in gaming, many of them just don't go on to become AAA building powerhouses. Creating a AAA title doesn't cost tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars anymore, it takes millions, so the bar to entry is that much higher.

But all you have to do is look to the indie scene to see a ton of innovation. Psyonix for instance, is nowhere near a major publisher, but Rocket League hit $110,000,000 in sales in the middle of last year.

So yeah, the average joe dev can't create a title with the latest cutting edge tech unless they pull a Star Citizen. But that's exactly how it is in the movie industry as well, you don't see small-time studios creating $100,000,000 movies very often if at all, but I wouldn't say that's reflective of movies as an entertainment product in it's death throes. We've just reached the point where to be AAA, you either have to reinvent the wheel (a la what Crytek did) or you have to be starting from some huge coffers to begin with.

[ElNono]

TF you talking about? Is the market that different where you're at? A DVD for 40 bucks? Damn

The very first DVDs released in the US (Africa the Serengeti, Antarctica, Tropical Rainforest, and Animation Greats) released by Lumivision in 1997 were $24.97 each. And those were not studio movies. The prices only went up until they plateau and eventually dropped once Netflix/streaming came into the scene. $25 is what new release Blu-Rays cost today.

The thing with guys like you and me is that we walk right past the video aisle (lol), but yeah, at some point studios were charging quite a bit for that shit.

[ElNono]

I don't know that I agree, considering one of the richest people in gaming is the creator of Minecraft and he literally became a billionaire from nothing with no major publisher behind him for most of the development.

There are a lot of success stories in gaming, many of them just don't go on to become AAA building powerhouses. Creating a AAA title doesn't cost tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars anymore, it takes millions, so the bar to entry is that much higher.

But all you have to do is look to the indie scene to see a ton of innovation. Psyonix for instance, is nowhere near a major publisher, but Rocket League hit $110,000,000 in sales in the middle of last year.

So yeah, the average joe dev can't create a title with the latest cutting edge tech unless they pull a Star Citizen. But that's exactly how it is in the movie industry as well, you don't see small-time studios creating $100,000,000 movies very often if at all, but I wouldn't say that's reflective of movies as an entertainment product in it's death throes. We've just reached the point where to be AAA, you either have to reinvent the wheel (a la what Crytek did) or you have to be starting from some huge coffers to begin with.

I didn't call it in it's death throes, I pointed out that the industry moved into a different business model. Never said it's a dying model.

It's just much more of a niche market than it used to be, and that has a lot of to do with a number of factors we've gone over (marketing prowess, entertainment variety, less mass market appeal, free to play, etc)

Content is smaller and delivered piecemeal, more geared towards monetization (ie: microtransactions), social media integration as part of marketing, etc.

I know I'm old enough, but you had a shit ton of little studios putting out games back in the day. Some of them ended up being big franchises. You still had the Sega, Nintendo, Konami, etc pulling their weight with their own AAA stuff, but you also had smaller companies (id and Bungie, for example) pushing the envelope with new stuff, which eventually made it big. Just a whole lot more varied ecosystem. I don't take away from Minecraft or Rocket League, but nowadays they're a blip in the radar compared to yesteryear, and in some cases, already swallowed up by another big Corp.

I actually hate the fact that companies like EA, Activision, etc ended up swallowing whole a lot of these studios. Really stunts creativity in a lot of ways, and push the whole marketing angle with social media integration, etc that normally adds little to nothing to the actual games.

Also, just my opinion, tbh, I don't claim to be right. It's obvious that big money is being made in the industry. I'm answering to the fact that we see less AAA games and less new franchises that offer variety or different game mechanics. Lots of remakes and cookie-cut stuff. I don't think it's bad because people clearly still pay for it, but if you're wondering why you don't see a lot of more of "new" stuff, well, there's a lot of that other stuff to consider.

[Cry Havoc]

I didn't call it in it's death throes, I pointed out that the industry moved into a different business model. Never said it's a dying model.

It's just much more of a niche market than it used to be, and that has a lot of to do with a number of factors we've gone over (marketing prowess, entertainment variety, less mass market appeal, free to play, etc)

Content is smaller and delivered piecemeal, more geared towards monetization (ie: microtransactions), social media integration as part of marketing, etc.

I know I'm old enough, but you had a shit ton of little studios putting out games back in the day. Some of them ended up being big franchises. You still had the Sega, Nintendo, Konami, etc pulling their weight with their own AAA stuff, but you also had smaller companies (id and Bungie, for example) pushing the envelope with new stuff, which eventually made it big. Just a whole lot more varied ecosystem. I don't take away from Minecraft or Rocket League, but nowadays they're a blip in the radar compared to yesteryear, and in some cases, already swallowed up by another big Corp.

I actually hate the fact that companies like EA, Activision, etc ended up swallowing whole a lot of these studios. Really stunts creativity in a lot of ways, and push the whole marketing angle with social media integration, etc that normally adds little to nothing to the actual games.

Also, just my opinion, tbh, I don't claim to be right. It's obvious that big money is being made in the industry. I'm answering to the fact that we see less AAA games and less new franchises that offer variety or different game mechanics. Lots of remakes and cookie-cut stuff. I don't think it's bad because people clearly still pay for it, but if you're wondering why you don't see a lot of more of "new" stuff, well, there's a lot of that other stuff to consider.

I agree to a large part. Big business arrived in gaming and it was the death knell for a specific generation of gaming. It sucks that EA and Activision have become such forces and they buy so many other worthy developers out.

That said, I'm enjoying games now more than I ever have. There might be a lot of negative consequences associated with how it's evolving, but there are some pretty bright spots too. You say there are no upstarts becoming major players -- well, look at Projekt Red. Witcher 2 was almost the perfect definition of a niche title. Not a ton of people played it and while it made money, it definitely wasn't "AAA" money. Now look at Witcher 3... CDPR is absolutely a AAA dev now, and their next title is even more ambitious than the last.

[baseline bum]

The very first DVDs released in the US (Africa the Serengeti, Antarctica, Tropical Rainforest, and Animation Greats) released by Lumivision in 1997 were $24.97 each. And those were not studio movies. The prices only went up until they plateau and eventually dropped once Netflix/streaming came into the scene. $25 is what new release Blu-Rays cost today.

The thing with guys like you and me is that we walk right past the video aisle (lol), but yeah, at some point studios were charging quite a bit for that shit.

I used to buy a lot of DVDs 10-15 years ago and I remember paying $20 for most of them (with the occasional $10 movie). The only DVDs I remember being $40 were the porn ones tbh.

[ElNono]

I used to buy a lot of DVDs 10-15 years ago and I remember paying $20 for most of them (with the occasional $10 movie). The only DVDs I remember being $40 were the porn ones tbh.

Then I'm probably wrong, tbh... then again, who paid for porn DVDs in the internet era?

[baseline bum]

Then I'm probably wrong, tbh... then again, who paid for porn DVDs in the internet era?

You never bought tranny porn to give someone on his birthday just to see the look on his dad's face when he unwrapped it?

[Xevious]

TF you talking about? Is the market that different where you're at? A DVD for 40 bucks? Damn

VHS tapes were upwards of $90 when new in the 80s.

[ElNono]

You never bought tranny porn to give someone on his birthday just to see the look on his dad's face when he unwrapped it?

:lmao

[DJR210]

The very first DVDs released in the US (Africa the Serengeti, Antarctica, Tropical Rainforest, and Animation Greats) released by Lumivision in 1997 were $24.97 each. And those were not studio movies. The prices only went up until they plateau and eventually dropped once Netflix/streaming came into the scene. $25 is what new release Blu-Rays cost today.

The thing with guys like you and me is that we walk right past the video aisle (lol), but yeah, at some point studios were charging quite a bit for that shit.

PS2.. the cheapest DVD player there was (in the beginning)

[ElNono]

PS2.. the cheapest DVD player there was (in the beginning)

Never owned one... for shame too, it had an excellent library of games

[140]

You never bought tranny porn to give someone on his birthday just to see the look on his dad's face when he unwrapped it?
:lol That's a great idea, tbh

[Reck]

You never bought tranny porn to give someone on his birthday just to see the look on his dad's face when he unwrapped it?

That's fucking genius. :lmao

[Leetonidas]

Brand new games on Amazon with prime for only 47.99 tbh

[Reck]

Brand new games on Amazon with prime for only 47.99 tbh

The Witcher 3 GOTY edition is 40. I copped it before it was gone. :lol