>>32762960>>32763039http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power>I’ve made the argument over the last few years that games are essentially cheaper than they’ve ever been. An NES game in 1990 cost, on average, about $50. That’s $89 in 2013 money. Your $70 N64 cartridges in 1998 would require the equivalent of $100 today. Heck, the $50 PlayStation 2 game you bought in 2005 is worth $60, the exact price of a typical retail game in 2013. This isn't to say that salaries (or hourly pay) have kept up with inflation and the cost-of-living -- it decidedly hasn't -- but it is to say that, dollar-to-dollar over the past 35 years, gaming hardware and software is generally cheaper than ever.Oh, and before you say "that ign article is lying my memory is objectively correct!" Here is an article from 2001
http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/15/technology/xbox/>several of the most anticipated titles for the Xbox, such as "Halo" and "NFL Fever 2002," were developed in-house, meaning Microsoft keeps the majority of the $40-to-$50 price tag. >40-50 dollars in 2001 money, 55-69 dollars in 2017 money, much more expensive than games todayBoth game hardware AND software are cheaper today, and no amount of "BUT I REMEMBER IT DIFFERENTLY!" will change history.
