Cheer Up: Games Don't Cost You As Much As They Used To

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Cheer Up: Games Don't Cost You As Much As They Used To

image

If you adjust for inflation, videogames have actually gotten less expensive over time.

Remember this scenario? You are twelve and you've heard about this great RPG that's coming out on your amazing Nintendo Entertainment System, Final Fantasy. Your parents are not what you'd call loaded or even comfortable with four kids to feed, but they promised that they would buy you a game for your birthday. Of course, you point to the fancy Final Fantasy box on the shelf of Software Etc. and say, "I want that one." Your dad smiles at you, pats your head and reaches for the box before casually glancing at the pricetag. "70 bucks? What the fuck? Pick out a cheaper game before I break your neck and throw it in your face." $70 in 1990 was a big deal, but that same game in today's dollars would be over $100. And it wasn't even a collector's edition.

It's easy to complain that new Xbox 360 or PS3 games all cost $60 here in the United States. With so many great games coming out all the time, we all worry that dropping 60 bones a new game might not be a good idea, given that we have to, you know, eat. Sure, it's an expensive hobby, but we often lose sight of how it used to be.

"Yes, some N64 games retailed for as high as $80, but it was also the high end of a 60 to 80 dollar range," said Hal Halpin, president of the Entertainment Consumers Association. "Retailers had more flexibility with pricing back then - though they've consistently maintained that the Suggested Retail Price was/is just a guide. Adjusted for inflation, we're generally paying less now than we have historically."

Even for more moderately priced games in the early 90s, such as can be seen in this old Sears catalog, most NES games were priced between $30 and $50. When you factor in a 4 percent inflation every year, paying $50 is like paying $80 in today's dollars.

70 dollars for a new game wasn't that rare 15 or 20 years ago. Sometimes, like in the case of Final Fantasy, the price was tied to the expensive (at the time) internal memory that was needed to store saved games. That's part of the reason that early Zelda games were more pricey. But other times, the price was bumped that high for more popular or anticipated titles. Ars Technica reports that games like Super Mario 64 and Pilotwings 64 were priced at $69.99 in 1996.

So when you start to complain about how much games cost nowadays, remember that it could be worse, and it certainly was for those of us who grew up during that time.

I had to wait until my friend beat Final Fantasy before he let me borrow it. It took him forever!

Source: Ars Technica

Permalink

The study is silly, it doesn't take into account the fact that other entertainment sources (movies, music, etc) are much cheaper than they used to be. Renting movies used to cost $6 a day + late fees. Now redbox is $1 and netflix is $10 a month. Music is about $10 for an album when it used to be $20.

If those numbers are adjusted for inflation you see that the price of games has actually gone up relative to other forms of entertainment.

I would celebrate if every new game sold $60+ at retail today. But I'm in Australia, and new games sell here for AU$100+, the equivalent of ~US$90+.

I reckon I can still complain, especially since that extra money certainly isn't going to the devs.

True enough, but I'm still flat out broke.

I'm still bitter than penny sweets cost more than a penny these days :'(

Remember the lines in Monkey Island commenting on how the game is worth $59.99? Yeah. Games really have fallen in price, and no amount of QQing and excuses can hide that fact.

Odd, because here in the UK (as far back as I can remember- about 15 or so years), games have ALWAYS been £30 or so. I'll admit recently I've seen a couple of games priced at £35 or £40, but generally they're £30 (except games with peripherals like Rock Band and shovelware games like My Super Desu-Kawaii Pony and Unicorn Funhouse 2). Of course, £30 isn't worth the same amount it was back then, so I'm curious about that.

Or maybe I've just been buying cheaper games... Still I got Starcraft II for about £30.

But don't forget, the Pound is stronger than the Dollar, my £30 is your $47.6 at the moment.

elexis:
I would celebrate if every new game sold $60+ at retail today. But I'm in Australia, and new games sell here for AU$100+, the equivalent of ~US$90+.

I reckon I can still complain, especially since that extra money certainly isn't going to the devs.

I'm Swedish, and our games cost roughly between 90-105 dollars here aswell (converted from Swedish "Kronor" of course.)

Funny, that's exactly how I ended up with Final Fantasy, albeit at $40. It is easy to forget how much games used to cost; after all, it was the parents doing the buying, as they do now for children clamoring for the latest FPS or GTA.

Yup makes total sense...

It kindly overlooks the fact that the gaming industry that (back then) had to survive off of a few hundred thousand sales has grown into a multi-million sales "hit industry" and is still expanding it's base.

It is also kindly overlooking the fact that "DLC" and "microtransactions" or "macrotransactions" (17$ for a hat and people pay that price lol...) has found its way into gaming and that apparently some companies want to tell you that using their games online is worth 60-160$+ a year (MMOs or just "simple" subscription fees for certain online services) and furthermore it kindly overlooks the fact that:

In the last cycle of videogames you spent $50 on a game, played it and took it back to the shop for credit. Today, we'll (charge) $100 for a guitar. You might add a microphone or drums; you might buy two or three expansions packs, different types of music. Over the life of your ownership you'll probably buy around 25 additional song packs in digital downloads. So, what used to be a $50 sale is a $500 sale today.

and that certain "game brands" have turned to "once a year" games at full price with just a few minor updates to them...

But yeah, aside of that they're TOTALLY right, gaming is like a lot cheaper and noone should complain...like ever and just take everything that comes royally up their b...

Wow, these articles always amaze me...

Games have come down in price. In the US.

How about the rest of the world where games are stupidly expensive?

I live in England, land of the cheap game. That said, I'm a student and therefore have no money, and what I find down the back of the sofa is going towards buying the cheapest possible foodstuffs (read: kebabs, possibly with a side order of E.Coli from the van half a mile a way) avaliable.

So there's good and bad for me.

Tomtitan:
Odd, because here in the UK (as far back as I can remember- about 15 or so years), games have ALWAYS been £30 or so. I'll admit recently I've seen a couple of games priced at £35 or £40, but generally they're £30 (except games with peripherals like Rock Band and shovelware games like My Super Desu-Kawaii Pony and Unicorn Funhouse 2). Of course, £30 isn't worth the same amount it was back then, so I'm curious about that.

Or maybe I've just been buying cheaper games... Still I got Starcraft II for about £30.

But don't forget, the Pound is stronger than the Dollar, my £30 is your $47.6 at the moment.

In relative terms, game prices have gone down. This is because even though the price has stayed the same, wages and the price of pretty much everything that isn't electronics has gone up. For example, the UK minimum wage has gone from £3.60/hr in 1999 to £5.93. If games had incresaed the same amount, they should cost approximately £49.42.

Inflation: Just because the proce hasn't changed, doesn't mean the cost hasn't.

Edit: I also remember when the N64 was out and the games for that were in the £50-£60 range.

I always find the inflation statements silly. Yeah they are factually right but the reality is that people didn't have the same value of the currency of today in the past. It's like saying, well if you had this much money you could of bought this back in the 1980's...well chances are you didn't have the money.

Still interesting though when you think of inflation.

Dexter111:
Yup makes total sense...

It kindly overlooks the fact that the gaming industry that (back then) had to survive off of a few hundred thousand sales has grown into a multi-million sales "hit industry" and is still expanding it's base.

It is also kindly overlooking the fact that "DLC" and "microtransactions" or "macrotransactions" (17$ for a hat and people pay that price lol...) has found its way into gaming and that apparently some companies want to tell you that using their games online is worth 60-160$+ a year (MMOs or just "simple" subscription fees for certain online services) and furthermore it kindly overlooks the fact that:

In the last cycle of videogames you spent $50 on a game, played it and took it back to the shop for credit. Today, we'll (charge) $100 for a guitar. You might add a microphone or drums; you might buy two or three expansions packs, different types of music. Over the life of your ownership you'll probably buy around 25 additional song packs in digital downloads. So, what used to be a $50 sale is a $500 sale today.

and that certain "game brands" have turned to "once a year" games at full price with just a few minor updates to them...

But yeah, aside of that they're TOTALLY right, gaming is like a lot cheaper and noone should complain...like ever and just take everything that comes royally up their b...

Wow, these articles always amaze me...

Look, I know your gimmick is being Mr. Grumpypants all the time, but everything you said is incidental. Yes, the base has expanded, but games cost many times more to make now than they ever did back in the day. Both have grown. Yes, some games have microtransactions and DLC, but for the most part they're absolutely irrelevant to the games themselves. (And you could argue that this shows that the games aren't as relatively profitable as they used to be)

a $50 game in 2000, adjusting for inflation, is a $60 game now. It's also much more expensive to make.

Everything you have said is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. You may not remember paying $80 in 1988 dollars for an NES cart, but I sure as hell do.

Yeah, maybe the new releases are now less expensive, but I remember the used games being much cheaper back then. I only bought used when I was a kid, and the most expensive purchase I remember was Donkey Kong 64 for the Nintendo 64 which was $40. I thought that price was outrageous, and the game even came with a memory pack. Nowadays most used stuff is just $5 below the new stuff.

rembrandtqeinstein:
The study is silly, it doesn't take into account the fact that other entertainment sources (movies, music, etc) are much cheaper than they used to be. Renting movies used to cost $6 a day + late fees. Now redbox is $1 and netflix is $10 a month. Music is about $10 for an album when it used to be $20.

If those numbers are adjusted for inflation you see that the price of games has actually gone up relative to other forms of entertainment.

New album is £10-14 here, films can be probably £8-15 and games are nearly always £40. (sometimes a bit more)
Wow things are cheap over there.

Now if only the quality of Final Fantasy didn't decline as well...

Delusibeta:
Remember the lines in Monkey Island commenting on how the game is worth $59.99? Yeah. Games really have fallen in price, and no amount of QQing and excuses can hide that fact.

This. Not to mention that games pack way more value into them now than games did back then (I also lol heartily at the argument that "games are getting shorter!" which is 100% false as well). So not only are you paying comparatively less, you're typically getting a lot more.

But some people insist on whining and denying, and there's no way you'll change their minds.

JerrytheBullfrog:

Dexter111:
Yup makes total sense...

It kindly overlooks the fact that the gaming industry that (back then) had to survive off of a few hundred thousand sales has grown into a multi-million sales "hit industry" and is still expanding it's base.

It is also kindly overlooking the fact that "DLC" and "microtransactions" or "macrotransactions" (17$ for a hat and people pay that price lol...) has found its way into gaming and that apparently some companies want to tell you that using their games online is worth 60-160$+ a year (MMOs or just "simple" subscription fees for certain online services) and furthermore it kindly overlooks the fact that:

In the last cycle of videogames you spent $50 on a game, played it and took it back to the shop for credit. Today, we'll (charge) $100 for a guitar. You might add a microphone or drums; you might buy two or three expansions packs, different types of music. Over the life of your ownership you'll probably buy around 25 additional song packs in digital downloads. So, what used to be a $50 sale is a $500 sale today.

and that certain "game brands" have turned to "once a year" games at full price with just a few minor updates to them...

But yeah, aside of that they're TOTALLY right, gaming is like a lot cheaper and noone should complain...like ever and just take everything that comes royally up their b...

Wow, these articles always amaze me...

Look, I know your gimmick is being Mr. Grumpypants all the time, but everything you said is incidental. Yes, the base has expanded, but games cost many times more to make now than they ever did back in the day. Both have grown. Yes, some games have microtransactions and DLC, but for the most part they're absolutely irrelevant to the games themselves. (And you could argue that this shows that the games aren't as relatively profitable as they used to be)

a $50 game in 2000, adjusting for inflation, is a $60 game now. It's also much more expensive to make.

Everything you have said is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. You may not remember paying $80 in 1988 dollars for an NES cart, but I sure as hell do.

I have to totally agree with this statement right here.. Pretty much everything in it. This is something I've said over and over again and no one ever seems to get it. Games have always been 60 dollars new here. Atari 2600 games were like 60 dollars.

Yes, the market has expanded, but the cost of making the games has expanded even more, and those costs certainly DO account for inflation, unlike the market price of the games, which seem not to.

Yes there is DLC and subscription services for games, but DLC is largely secondary to actual the games themselves, and is actually a GOOD thing, no matter how you want to cut it (I just don't like paying for Day 1 DLC.. Week 2 DLC? sure, if I have money and the game is good and the DLC looks good, I'll buy it.. it's an ethical thing).. Subscription services have been in games for a long time. Everquest is almost 14 years old, and Ultima Online is a year older then that.. I'm not sure if games prior to that had subscriptions (other then certain services, such as Sega Channel (I miss thee, Sega Channel)), but the fees themselves haven't really increased over the years either.. they've always been about 15 dollars IIRC... I might be wrong there, they might have been 10 dollars back in the day.. If so, oops.

Yes, renting games and movies is a lot cheaper these days, but I don't see how that really applies to the Suggested Retail Price of a new video game.. Back then, renting games was a luxury service, now the rental of games and movies is ubiquitous.. and even with lowering prices, most rental services (at least street based ones) are DYING HORRIBLE BLOODY DEATH because they're not making enough money. Food for thought there I think.

Thank you. Every time there has been a thread where people start complaining about games being "expensive" I have pointed out that they really aren't that bad considering inflation and such. I'm glad that someone finally made a post about it.

I seem to remember Activison charging £50 for modern warfare 2. This wasnt inflation it was corporate douchebaggery.

I mean on the PS1 when the game went classic it went to £19 as a rule. Now you get a different cover, and a huge mark-up.

On a side note. If companies are bitching about pre-owned games, perhaps they should try not marking up their prices. People cant afford to spend £40 each time they want a game.

Fun fact the market for video games has increased

lets say in 1980 1 in 10 people had a video game console today its 9 in 10 so if anything games should be worth less

rockyoumonkeys:

Not to mention that games pack way more value into them now than games did back then (I also lol heartily at the argument that "games are getting shorter!" which is 100% false as well). So not only are you paying comparatively less, you're typically getting a lot more.

But some people insist on whining and denying, and there's no way you'll change their minds.

I'm sorry, but that's balls. Games have gotten shorter, and everyone from gamers to critics, even the developers themselves, ackowledge this. Modern Warfare 2 had a campaign that lasted all of 5 hours. Compare that to the original Halo; I must have sunk at least fifteen hours into that puppy, just getting through the campaign. I've just finished playing Deus Ex, a game that easily went over the twenty hour mark. Hell, back in the PSX era, it took me over 50 hours to get to the end of Final Fantasy IX. While this generation of gaming may have prettier graphics, it's also notorious amongst gamers for being the generation where campaign lengths took a serious nosedive.

If you told a gamer twenty years ago that they'd be paying £40 for a game, and getting less than twenty hours on average out of it's campaign, they'd have slapped you silly for such an outlandish idea.

EDIT

Maybe in the US games are getting cheaper. I remember when a brand new game for the Playstation cost £25. And, if it was one of the millions of awesome RPGs for that system, you would get dozens of hours of play out of it. Now, checking out my local high street, I've not seen a new game going anywhere for less than £40 (or £39.99 if you want to be pedantic). Paying an extra £15 just for some extra graphical sparkle makes my inner skinflint incredibly upset...

Racthoh:
Now if only the quality of Final Fantasy didn't decline as well...

Oh, buuuuurrrrrnnnnn...

FoolKiller:
Thank you. Every time there has been a thread where people start complaining about games being "expensive" I have pointed out that they really aren't that bad considering inflation and such. I'm glad that someone finally made a post about it.

God bless you god bless you, if only all consumers where like you, thank you

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

rockyoumonkeys:

Not to mention that games pack way more value into them now than games did back then (I also lol heartily at the argument that "games are getting shorter!" which is 100% false as well). So not only are you paying comparatively less, you're typically getting a lot more.

But some people insist on whining and denying, and there's no way you'll change their minds.

I'm sorry, but that's balls. Games have gotten shorter, and everyone from gamers to critics, even the developers themselves, ackowledge this. Modern Warfare 2 had a campaign that lasted all of 5 hours. Compare that to the original Halo; I must have sunk at least fifteen hours into that puppy, just getting through the campaign. I've just finished playing Deus Ex, a game that easily went over the twenty hour mark. Hell, back in the PSX era, it took me over 50 hours to get to the end of Final Fantasy IX. While this generation of gaming may have prettier graphics, it's also notorious amongst gamers for being the generation where campaign lengths took a serious nosedive.

If you told a gamer twenty years ago that they'd be paying £40 for a game, and getting less than twenty hours on average out of it's campaign, they'd have slapped you silly for such an outlandish idea.

You're cherry picking.

Oooh yeah they are cheaper. Here, think about this. I just got Steam in April. By know I have 6 games in my library, and I have only paid 15 dollars. That is what I call cheap. Plus, for the amount of high quality content you get in a game, I am glad the prices have not reached 100 dollars a game. If even one of our crap games were released back in 2000 or so, it would still be amazing, and would cost a whole lot of dough. Now think of that while you play your Half-Life 2 that you got for 3 dollars on Steam

This is why I played PC all the games were always $50 or lower. There were only a few exceptions to this rule.

Susan Arendt:

Racthoh:
Now if only the quality of Final Fantasy didn't decline as well...

Oh, buuuuurrrrrnnnnn...

It's simple, we kill the Wada.

Tomtitan:
Odd, because here in the UK (as far back as I can remember- about 15 or so years), games have ALWAYS been £30 or so. I'll admit recently I've seen a couple of games priced at £35 or £40, but generally they're £30 (except games with peripherals like Rock Band and shovelware games like My Super Desu-Kawaii Pony and Unicorn Funhouse 2). Of course, £30 isn't worth the same amount it was back then, so I'm curious about that.

Or maybe I've just been buying cheaper games... Still I got Starcraft II for about £30.

But don't forget, the Pound is stronger than the Dollar, my £30 is your $47.6 at the moment.

Not true. Carts for the Nes/mega drive/snes went between £40 and £60. In the early 90s that was a massive sum. You would get maybe 2 games a year.

This isn't news for any one who's past their mid 20s.

rockyoumonkeys:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

rockyoumonkeys:

Not to mention that games pack way more value into them now than games did back then (I also lol heartily at the argument that "games are getting shorter!" which is 100% false as well). So not only are you paying comparatively less, you're typically getting a lot more.

But some people insist on whining and denying, and there's no way you'll change their minds.

I'm sorry, but that's balls. Games have gotten shorter, and everyone from gamers to critics, even the developers themselves, ackowledge this. Modern Warfare 2 had a campaign that lasted all of 5 hours. Compare that to the original Halo; I must have sunk at least fifteen hours into that puppy, just getting through the campaign. I've just finished playing Deus Ex, a game that easily went over the twenty hour mark. Hell, back in the PSX era, it took me over 50 hours to get to the end of Final Fantasy IX. While this generation of gaming may have prettier graphics, it's also notorious amongst gamers for being the generation where campaign lengths took a serious nosedive.

If you told a gamer twenty years ago that they'd be paying £40 for a game, and getting less than twenty hours on average out of it's campaign, they'd have slapped you silly for such an outlandish idea.

You're cherry picking.

No, I'm proving your argument wrong. I only used a couple of examples. I can use plenty more: Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox had a campaign approaching twenty hours if you were playing it first time. Morrowind could theoretically take hundreds of hours. Knights Of The Old Republic was a thirty-fourty hour beast. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory took me around 17 hours to get through (and that's not even counting the separate co-op campaign). Back on the Playstation, Breath Of Fire took me fourty hours, Legend Of Mana twenty five, Final Fantasy VII took five hours just to get past the first level...

Back when graphics weren't as detailed, developers could afford to make longer game campaigns. With so mcuh time being dedicated to getting shiny shiny visuals, we're lucky if we get a campaign over ten hours long. That's not me cherry picking, it's a fact. And there are millions of disgruntled old-school gamers out there who will say much the same.

IamQ:

elexis:
I would celebrate if every new game sold $60+ at retail today. But I'm in Australia, and new games sell here for AU$100+, the equivalent of ~US$90+.

I reckon I can still complain, especially since that extra money certainly isn't going to the devs.

I'm Swedish, and our games cost roughly between 90-105 dollars here aswell (converted from Swedish "Kronor" of course.)

Not only that, but back when I was younger, games cost a couple of hundreds of crowns less, capping at around 400 (that's freakin 60 dollars), and even when taking inflation into consideration it was still a hell of a lot cheaper than it is now.

60 dollars isn't much for games at all. I just wish they cost that much in Sweden.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

rockyoumonkeys:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

rockyoumonkeys:

Not to mention that games pack way more value into them now than games did back then (I also lol heartily at the argument that "games are getting shorter!" which is 100% false as well). So not only are you paying comparatively less, you're typically getting a lot more.

But some people insist on whining and denying, and there's no way you'll change their minds.

I'm sorry, but that's balls. Games have gotten shorter, and everyone from gamers to critics, even the developers themselves, ackowledge this. Modern Warfare 2 had a campaign that lasted all of 5 hours. Compare that to the original Halo; I must have sunk at least fifteen hours into that puppy, just getting through the campaign. I've just finished playing Deus Ex, a game that easily went over the twenty hour mark. Hell, back in the PSX era, it took me over 50 hours to get to the end of Final Fantasy IX. While this generation of gaming may have prettier graphics, it's also notorious amongst gamers for being the generation where campaign lengths took a serious nosedive.

If you told a gamer twenty years ago that they'd be paying £40 for a game, and getting less than twenty hours on average out of it's campaign, they'd have slapped you silly for such an outlandish idea.

You're cherry picking.

No, I'm proving your argument wrong. I only used a couple of examples. I can use plenty more: Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox had a campaign approaching twenty hours if you were playing it first time. Morrowind could theoretically take hundreds of hours. Knights Of The Old Republic was a thirty-fourty hour beast. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory took me around 17 hours to get through (and that's not even counting the separate co-op campaign). Back on the Playstation, Breath Of Fire took me fourty hours, Legend Of Mana twenty five, Final Fantasy VII took five hours just to get past the first level...

Back when graphics weren't as detailed, developers could afford to make longer game campaigns. With so mcuh time being dedicated to getting shiny shiny visuals, we're lucky if we get a campaign over ten hours long. That's not me cherry picking, it's a fact. And there are millions of disgruntled old-school gamers out there who will say much the same.

Still cherry picking. Of course you'll find some longer games back then and some shorter games now, since not all games are the same length, but the average length of the games is not going down. Five hour campaigns like those in MW2 are exceedingly rare.

Not to mention that it was very easy to make old-school RPGs last dozens of hours, because they were all super repetitive grindfests. It still remains that you're comparing the exceptionally long games of the past with the exceptionally short games of the present, and that's a terrible way to make your point. Red Dead Redemption will have taken me over 30 hours to finish. Fallout 3 and Oblivion were about 100 hours each, and that's not doing everything. Dragon Age is by most accounts a very long game (I haven't played much yet). See? I can find them too.

Of course you'll get some developers making super short campaign games like MW2, because their primary focus is the multiplayer. In a case like that, the single-player campaign is almost an extra feature. It's not what drives sales, and there are tons of people who never even touch it. But those same people will put hundreds of hours into the multiplayer.

But this is all off-topic anyway.

Dexter111:
Yup makes total sense...

It kindly overlooks the fact that the gaming industry that (back then) had to survive off of a few hundred thousand sales has grown into a multi-million sales "hit industry" and is still expanding it's base.

It is also kindly overlooking the fact that "DLC" and "microtransactions" or "macrotransactions" (17$ for a hat and people pay that price lol...) has found its way into gaming and that apparently some companies want to tell you that using their games online is worth 60-160$+ a year (MMOs or just "simple" subscription fees for certain online services) and furthermore it kindly overlooks the fact that:

In the last cycle of videogames you spent $50 on a game, played it and took it back to the shop for credit. Today, we'll (charge) $100 for a guitar. You might add a microphone or drums; you might buy two or three expansions packs, different types of music. Over the life of your ownership you'll probably buy around 25 additional song packs in digital downloads. So, what used to be a $50 sale is a $500 sale today.

and that certain "game brands" have turned to "once a year" games at full price with just a few updates to them...

But yeah, aside of that they're TOTALLY right, gaming is like a lot cheaper and noone should complain...like ever and just take everything that comes royally up their b...

Wow, these articles always amaze me...

Which, in turn, overlooks the increasing average development costs for games. Bigger market, but also higher 'bottom line'. Smaller developers still exist, and frequently price their games less.

DLC and transactional items are additional content beyond the basic game; you might argue that it should be in the game at release, but if the company wants to release the game at the already non-inflation-adjusted price that the public already complains as 'too expensive', it is additional content for no additional compensation. Something that in prior game generations would likely just have been left out (or in some cases stretched into a sequel), since if you couldn't include it in the main product by the deadline, who would pay the logistics cost of delivering the post-release content in the time before widespread internet access?

Subscription-based, online-only content is a far, far newer market, and their pricing systems have been pretty consistent in the USD 10-15/mo range. Are there any significant numbers of them increasing their subscription fees over time?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here