Holy crap, these are in usd? I never knew what the prices were for n64 games
this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
85 points (96.7% liked)
Gaming
3827 readers
35 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ogre Battle 64 was the most expensive N64 game I think
It's freaking expensive, even before inflation adjustment.
And that's how Playstation won the console wars.
Multiply those prices by 2 to account for buying power back then.
Console is “only $300” but games are $100 at minimum.
Which is why looking at some of those games I kind of get why games need to charge more. Definitely not keeping up with inflation. However, I also see a much broader range in those games, and if they want game prices to go up then they also need to understand price ranges for quality.
Something like RDR2, true masterpiece, I would go to 100. Maybe 120. That game is perfect, no flaws, and several hundred hours of gameplay.
Assassin's creed could stick at 60. Very much a mid game, gets a mid price.
Bad games will just pick high prices to trick people into thinking it's good. Having everything cost the same at launch is the only steady-state solution.
Wayne Gretzky's Fighting Hockey was one of the most expensive games and it was also complete and utter trash, so the tiered pricing isn't gonna work. $60 is plenty, if the devs need more money I recommend firing executives and filler managers.
Not to mention, you don’t necessarily need budgets like this to make truly memorable and impactful games. The shining example of Minecraft is always there.
Sure, RDR2 is a rare masterpiece that many still consider to be the best game ever made, but once I finished it, I moved onto my many other indie titles that I had just as much fun with.
Graphics are great when the dev has the resources available, but if it requires that you upcharge the game when I would be having the same amount of fun anyway, maybe just focus more on the gameplay loop and less on graphics and tech.
I have a soft spot for Wayne Gretzky’s Hockey on N64 as I played it exclusively multiplayer which was much more fun than single player (which was extremely shit)
The number of copies sold is much higher though.
In the end if there's someone rich from the sales somewhere in the chain it's because the product is overpriced.
I disagree. I have no problem if a product is of high quality and it gets it's value.
But you evaluate this value based on the price of other products which are all overpriced to compensate for the rich people taking their cut.
Take a bag of carrots, the person who picks them makes less than minimum wage, the person transporting them makes an ok wage, all the employees at the grocery store make about minimum wage, in the end that bag costs the store 1$ when taking all the actual labor and transport into consideration, they sell it to you for 5$, the CEO is a billionaire, everyone else in the production chain has a hard time affording the bag of carrots.
Everything we buy is overpriced to enrich the few, we can't evaluate what is a fair price because of that!
You're going way off point of what I originally said, and I'm not having an argument here about rich vs poor or class systems. All I said was that a higher quality game earned a higher price than a lower quality game. Anything else you want to assume or believe is your own, but it's separate from my statement.
You said they need to charge more, I'm saying they don't need to if you remove all the rich leeches that are only there to suck on the revenue to lower the total profits.
Lower the 30% share from the publisher and launcher to 10% each and the total cost can be much lower with the same revenue going to the studio. Those businesses taking a 30% share are where you find the multi millionaires and billionaires that don't actually put in any work.
Got it, you want to argue your point, I don't want to, we'll leave it here.
I'm just answering what you said and saying it's wrong, that's all.
I remember as a kid going with my dad to toys r us to buy this right around launch day. I paid for the console and Mario 64 with my own piggy bank / birthday money. We also paid more than what’s shown on the ad, I think that was the reduced price later on. The sales person working the cage (they had all the consoles behind fencing during this era) almost didn’t give us one because we were in a “day early” which we didn’t realize. But the dude was like screw it and gave us everything anyway breaking street date. Went home and played Mario 64 straight for 2-3 weeks. One of the best gaming memories for me that is firmly engrained in my brain.
No one is gonna point out that sick skater bro riding a computer mouse??
That's Geoffrey!
I wonder if that's the most expensive Doom. 75 dollars, yikes
T right, in what, 1996??!
Yeah those prices shocked me, even though I was there 3000 years ago when they were written.
Was die hard any good?
I remember playing both at a local electronics store. Turok and NFS 2 specifically. Never owned one myself, but good times.
The simple days. You want the good system or the one with a number in the title?