Next Gen -- No Thanks

Over the past month or two there have been a lot of rumors and rumblings about the long-delayed “next gen” round of consoles. Lately talk has swirled of a 2012 holiday-season launch for a new Windows-driven Microsoft console. And, to be honest, it kind of makes sense. Now that the Wii has opened up the race, certainly competition cannot be far behind. I assume even gun-shy Sony will eventually get into the act.

As far as I’m concerned, this is all very disappointing news.

I realize now, only too late, that I don’t actually want a new console generation at all. In fact, I can’t think of a single thing that the current console generation should do that it currently can’t. I actually don’t really want any more graphical whizbangery — Battlefield 3 has shown me that the current gen can look too close to real as it is. Online integration is as fully featured as I need it to be. I could probably move to console-only media consumption and be happy enough, particularly once Microsoft's Live update adds even more functionality. My systems already integrate just fine with my computer and other home media. And the games for these systems are getting really, really good. Last thing I want is to go back to 3 years of developers trying to figure out how to make the tech work.

You know what, Microsoft. Keep your Xbox 3 — somehow I keep forgetting that the 360 is actually only the second MS console — I don’t want it.

I imagine being a man dying of starvation and being handed a slightly burned grilled-cheese sandwich. What kind of fiery core of desire would that spark? How the imagination of that taste would stir even as I was lifting the blackened bread and molten cheese to my mouth. I would revel in ecstasy as the charred bread scratched my soft palette, and the bubbling dairy singed my taste buds.

I can even imagine somewhere many years later half-heartedly enjoying a similar sandwich, now a thing of mediocrity, and being offered a tender, perfectly-cooked steak. “Yes, please,” I would say, already reaching hungrily for this clear upgrade. And, sure, obvious metaphor is obvious, but now in this modern age I’m already eating steak. I can no more easily imagine something better than this grade-A cut of Xbox-loin or Sony-rump-roast than I can figure out what my shadow looks like in the fourth dimension.

Hey, I know you’re eating steak, but here’s some steak with cool new salt! No thanks, bud. I’m good.

There is, of course, a hazard in throwing down this kind of gauntlet before the announcement of an announcement has even begun to form. Given that my resolve to pass on Uncharted 3 lasted for a good solid zero days, the likelihood that I will be tempted down the line is probably better than average.

That said, I have to occasionally be reminded that Nintendo has a successor to the Wii in the works. Even though I read a dozen articles on the machine when it was announced, I couldn’t tell you anything about what I read except I vaguely recall that there was a touch pad or a motion sensor or something. Maybe there are a lot of people quietly (very quietly) getting excited for this console, but what I know is that they aren’t writing much about their excitement.

“Well,” you might say, “there’s no new information to talk about, so why would anyone be writing about the …” what the hell was it called again? The Wii U or something. Sure I could have looked that up, but the point is that I would have had to look it up. Also, since when has not having anything new to say ever stopped an overenthusiastic internet from writing about stuff? Maybe there will be buzz down the line, but right now there’s more buzz in the passenger side speaker of my Camry than there is about the Nintendo Whatever That Thing Is Called.

And for that matter, the chatter for a new MS console seems almost perfunctory. I’d guess this may be the first some of you are hearing about it. Like Arbor Day, it was one of those things that we all knew was going to come around again at some point, and presumably someone was going to let us know, but really it’s not something we get particularly worked up about. I don’t remember the same kind of disengagement when whispers of a new Playstation or Xbox began to bubble some eight or so years ago.

A lot can change in a year. Or even two. What I’m hoping is that when the specifics start to come to light, I’ll get it. “Aha,” I hope to say. “It delivers medically prescribed pleasure-photons directly into my retinal-joy-receptors. Yeah, I get it.”

What I’m afraid of, though, is that all the perennial titles really digging into their prime now will be all but discontinued — except for FIFA, because FIFA releases on everything — and we’ll have a year of wondering when something we’ve heard of before will actually be released for this new brick of wires sitting in my living room. The idea of paying $500 for the pleasure of three months with nothing but six or seven launch titles to play makes me curl my lip in disgust.

Console launch mania is so 1995.

Maybe Microsonydo can convince me otherwise with some clever marketing, or even better some actually good ideas. I have my doubts.

Comments

My PS3 plays videos off our media server just fine. Why would I need to upgrade?

Oh, you mean this thing plays games?

heavyfeul wrote:
doubtingthomas396 wrote:

Are there good games to play on the consoles? Yes, and I'll be the first to admit it. But the headaches associated with playing them are worse than any I remember in my thirty years of being a gamer.

Yes, I'm doing what Cory would call Hyperbole Theatre, but only just.

Hyperbole is the exaggeration of fact. You are stating an opinion. My 360 has been a fantastic gaming machine and I have been playing games since Pac Man as well. I consider it a real watershed momemt in my gaming life. It is right up there with building my first really capable gaming PC.

The facts are that The XBox 360 had unprecedented hardware failures years after launch. There's a forum thread on this very site dedicated to XBox360 failures. Anyone but microsoft would have imploded after the expense.

The facts are that Sony "lost" 70 million user accounts to hackers. Okay, so nobody on this forum plays the PS3 (hyperbole again!) but still. Has there ever been such a huge security breach, even with hackers prying into your PC ever since AOL was the only game in town?

The facts are that it more than took 2 years for Nintendo's production of the Wii to keep up with demand for the console. Two Christmases after launch, the Wii was still almost impossible to find. They made conscious decisions not to expand their factory capabilities for reasons that made sense to them at the time, but didn't make it any easier to get a Wii.

Then there's the growing DRM issues that every console is facing, the "only if you buy new" controversies, the now ubiquitous patching of games. Sony gives you free internet access that's slow as hell, and Microsoft makes you pay extra for it.

These are not opinions, these are the facts as they exist, and they weren't a problem on, say, the PS2 (which did have production issues after launch) or the PS1 (which did have some reliability issues), or the NES (which I still have one of in my basement and it still works).

Some of these issues couldn't have existed on, say, the super nintendo. But they're issues now, and on balance there are more issues in this console generation than there have been historically.

You can disagree with my opinion that this is the worst generation ever, but you must admit that there have been a lot of serious charlie foxtrots from every major console developer this gen.

DT, the only failure this cycle was hardware - regarding that you make fine points. That said, I am 31 and have been gaming my entire life - I can't remember a time when there were more quality gaming experiences to be had. I am absolutely overwhelmed with choice in a way that I never was with previous console iterations/generations.

Even with the failures - I personally haven't ever been affected. I have never (knock on wood and don't jinx me!) dealt with a red ring, yellow light, or hardware issue that required more than a reboot. The Sony hack was a total debacle, and I haven't purchased anything Sony since - but that is more because of a moral stance than because I was so terribly affected. So there has been no real inconvenience for me.

Your opinion is your own and works for you - but I totally disagree that this is the worst generation ever. For me, there has never been a better time to be a gamer.

I think you can make a case for the software side being a failure, at least from the business standpoint. Right now most games make a loss (across all platforms, from big to small), and the industry is propped up by a relatively tiny amount of huge hits. In addition to that most people don't buy new games, but used (talking console-only). Going to another generation is only going to increase the requirements on producers to keep up.

Technically the software side has it's quality problems too, Bethesda being a common offender as one example, which is directly related to all those patches the console side 'enjoys' now. Also on the software side is where designers get to choose what demands they place on the hardware, where to put performance balance between good looks and smooth framerate, and what experience the player gets.

That doesn't really seem like a good healthy industry.

doubtingthomas396 wrote:

You can disagree with my opinion that this is the worst generation ever, but you must admit that there have been a lot of serious charlie foxtrots from every major console developer this gen.

And now there's non-stop hacking of 360/XBL accounts that they need their own threads. And no one is sure about the vector for all these hacks. Trojans on PCs are suspected in many, but not all, cases. It wouldn't be so bad if MS wasn't taking so long to return peoples' accounts.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

It wouldn't be so bad if MS wasn't taking so long to return peoples' accounts.

It may be an issue not directly related to a console generation, but the audience provided in the last few years combined with wide usage of online functions has highlighted the issue. I think a lot of companies are over-extending themselves compared to their capability to support all those customers. It's something you can't know for certain, as I don't think they'll share what would be internal information about how busy their support is.

DT, all of those issues are the just the bad sides of good things! Where you see Microsoft having a huge financial meltdown, I see an incident with a company so invested in success that they'd actually ship you a console free of charge outside of their promised warranty period. Where you see Sony bungling majorly, I see a console infrastructure so massive and so populated that it would actually be a target for hackers.

The only comparable development would be PC MMO gaming, and those vaults are protected better than Fort Knoxx. This is a sign of the gaming world stepping forward. Sure, it's a misstep, but it wasn't worse than the PS2 era, in which the most exciting development was adding more polygons to models.

Where you see Nintendo being unreasonable, I see a console being such a wide mass market success that even the most optimistic estimates of the manufacturer couldn't keep up with demand. That's GOOD, not bad.

EDGE magazine takes the stance that the next gen is hitting next year on all three consoles: http://www.next-gen.biz/news/next-ge...

LarryC wrote:

DT, all of those issues are the just the bad sides of good things! Where you see Microsoft having a huge financial meltdown, I see an incident with a company so invested in success that they'd actually ship you a console free of charge outside of their promised warranty period. Where you see Sony bungling majorly, I see a console infrastructure so massive and so populated that it would actually be a target for hackers.

The only comparable development would be PC MMO gaming, and those vaults are protected better than Fort Knoxx. This is a sign of the gaming world stepping forward. Sure, it's a misstep, but it wasn't worse than the PS2 era, in which the most exciting development was adding more polygons to models.

Where you see Nintendo being unreasonable, I see a console being such a wide mass market success that even the most optimistic estimates of the manufacturer couldn't keep up with demand. That's GOOD, not bad.

I like your version of this. +1

jlaakso wrote:

EDGE magazine takes the stance that the next gen is hitting next year on all three consoles: http://www.next-gen.biz/news/next-ge...

#1 - These should be 512 bit systems, right? Being two generations after the N64.

#2 - I'm afraid it sounded like Microsoft might be running on a standard PC processor. This would be a huge bummer in terms of the prospects for BC.

#3 - I'm okay with this as long as BC is strong.

Finally, I see a flaw in this plan for the platform holders. This generation was expensive. The PSP is still $130 and hasn't reached down to the $80 like the GBA did. The DSI is still pricey. I can't imagine that everyone is going to spring for a 3DS, Vita, XBox 4000, Wii U and PS4 in the same year. That's likely to be literally thousands in hardware alone if someone wanted to play on most platforms. So someone is going to be chosen over someone else.

Maybe time to start a new thread. If 5 consoles launch in the same 2 year time span, who will win? They can't all go first, right? And Microsoft's first party is really weak right now.

DSGamer wrote:

Finally, I see a flaw in this plan for the platform holders. This generation was expensive. The PSP is still $130 and hasn't reached down to the $80 like the GBA did. The DSI is still pricey. I can't imagine that everyone is going to spring for a 3DS, Vita, XBox 4000, Wii U and PS4 in the same year. That's likely to be literally thousands in hardware alone if someone wanted to play on most platforms. So someone is going to be chosen over someone else.

Maybe time to start a new thread. If 5 consoles launch in the same 2 year time span, who will win? They can't all go first, right?

Yes, that's pretty much the mutually assured destruction console war. Still, I think there's a bit of a "gaming forum viewpoint" that you have to get everything the moment it's released, which isn't true in the real world. People pick what they can afford, which I guess leads to "mine is better than yours" flamewars.

DSGamer wrote:

And Microsoft's first party is really weak right now.

Kinect. Am I right?
.....
Am I right?

Microsoft's heavy-hitters are Halo, Fable, and Forza (they do not own the Gears of War franchise; it's just a console-exclusive). Kinect-branded stuff is sorta in there, depending. It's second-tier properties include things like Alan Wake, Crackdown, and Viva Pinata.

But really, Microsoft's strongest first-party asset isn't their gaming properties. It's Xbox Live. I'm not sure if they consciously realized it at first or not, but they found a way to build loyalty to their brand that breaks the game franchises model that has kept Nintendo in business through thick and thin. As successful as Halo has been, it doesn't come near the cross-genre, cross-generational appeal of something like Mario, but they've created a whole ecosystem of multiplayer, achievements, and connectivity that will help them sell units in the next generation without depending as much on first-party game franchises.

if anything, going into the next generation, I'd be more worried about Sony than anyone else. They don't have the franchise loyalties that Nintendo does, and they don't have the ecosystem of Microsoft. Their strongest asset right now is their popularity outside of the United States. If Nintendo or Microsoft can really crack that, Sony is in trouble.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

But really, Microsoft's strongest first-party asset isn't their gaming properties. It's Xbox Live. I'm not sure if they consciously realized it at first or not, but they found a way to build loyalty to their brand that breaks the game franchises model that has kept Nintendo in business through thick and thin.

+ a billionty

Scratched wrote:

I think you can make a case for the software side being a failure, at least from the business standpoint. Right now most games make a loss (across all platforms, from big to small), and the industry is propped up by a relatively tiny amount of huge hits. In addition to that most people don't buy new games, but used (talking console-only). Going to another generation is only going to increase the requirements on producers to keep up.

These are things that would concern me if I owned stock in video game companies. As a consumer, however, I could not possibly care less. From my perspective, I see a wider selection of, on average, higher-quality games than were available in any previous console generation, for cheaper (adjusted for inflation and taking into account sales, used prices, etc.) than ever before. If that's failure, may we never succeed.

hbi2k wrote:
Scratched wrote:

I think you can make a case for the software side being a failure, at least from the business standpoint

These are things that would concern me if I owned stock in video game companies. As a consumer, however, I could not possibly care less. From my perspective, I see a wider selection of, on average, higher-quality games than were available in any previous console generation, for cheaper (adjusted for inflation and taking into account sales, used prices, etc.) than ever before. If that's failure, may we never succeed.

I think it has a direct impact on how much you pay for your games. Such influences aren't exactly pressuring down on prices, while there's a lot that have upward pressure.

Just as with the base console price, what's too much for the games? And presumably you pay more over the life of a console on the software you run on it.

Scratched wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Finally, I see a flaw in this plan for the platform holders. This generation was expensive. The PSP is still $130 and hasn't reached down to the $80 like the GBA did. The DSI is still pricey. I can't imagine that everyone is going to spring for a 3DS, Vita, XBox 4000, Wii U and PS4 in the same year. That's likely to be literally thousands in hardware alone if someone wanted to play on most platforms. So someone is going to be chosen over someone else.

Maybe time to start a new thread. If 5 consoles launch in the same 2 year time span, who will win? They can't all go first, right?

Yes, that's pretty much the mutually assured destruction console war. Still, I think there's a bit of a "gaming forum viewpoint" that you have to get everything the moment it's released, which isn't true in the real world. People pick what they can afford, which I guess leads to "mine is better than yours" flamewars.

Well, for starters that bugs me in and of itself. I wish the consoles would launch at more sane prices this time around so people could try out different consoles and not get entrenched in the never-ending console wars.

That said my point is more to the mutually assured destruction angle. Since I know most people outside forums like this (and even many people here) won't be able to afford or can't justify 2 - 5 consoles then there will be stark winners and losers. Probably more pronounced this time around. And the console wars will only get worse. I hope the big 3 are smart enough to launch below $500- $600 so this is a bit of a moot point.

DSGamer wrote:

Well, for starters that bugs me in and of itself. I wish the consoles would launch at more sane prices this time around so people could try out different consoles and not get entrenched in the never-ending console wars.

You could always buy one and then trade it... Aw, hell, that setup's too easy.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Well, for starters that bugs me in and of itself. I wish the consoles would launch at more sane prices this time around so people could try out different consoles and not get entrenched in the never-ending console wars.

You could always buy one and then trade it... Aw, hell, that setup's too easy. :nicekiss:

People doesn't mean me. I can buy consoles as I please as you point out.

I'm saying that I would like the console wars to end by virtue of consoles launching at $200 max. Part of that is driven by my desire to see developers take more chances with a larger install base. I feel like the psychology of the console wars is partly driven out of fear that cool games won't make it to the console you paid $300 (or $600) for. I'm not a "one console future" guy, but I wouldn't mind if the consoles were more accessible to people outside of DINKs like myself.

Scratched wrote:

I think it has a direct impact on how much you pay for your games. Such influences aren't exactly pressuring down on prices, while there's a lot that have upward pressure.

Just as with the base console price, what's too much for the games? And presumably you pay more over the life of a console on the software you run on it.

In theory, sure. In practice, it's balanced by the downward pressure caused by fierce competition, small downloadable games, Steam sales, and used sales. I could make it a personal policy to never pay more than $20 for a game and never run out of awesome games to play.

Even if you buy only new releases on Day One, after adjusting for inflation, console and software prices have stayed almost exactly constant since the dawn of the industry. These companies have become very, very good at designing a product that can be sold for exactly what the market will bear.

Right, you look out for bargains, rent and buy used. Meanwhile the industry expenses are going up (I assume, unless they've managed to do more for the same amount of money). This leads to the industry implementing things like online passes, and a greater emphasis on DLC. I wonder what the next round will be like.

Scratched wrote:

Right, you look out for bargains, rent and buy used. Meanwhile the industry expenses are going up (I assume, unless they've managed to do more for the same amount of money). This leads to the industry implementing things like online passes, and a greater emphasis on DLC. I wonder what the next round will be like.

Scratched wrote:

Right, you look out for bargains, rent and buy used. Meanwhile the industry expenses are going up (I assume, unless they've managed to do more for the same amount of money). This leads to the industry implementing things like online passes, and a greater emphasis on DLC. I wonder what the next round will be like.

Again: none of this is my concern. I have a fixed entertainment budget, and I buy as much game as I can within that. I buy DLC when I feel like the value for the asking price is good; when I don't feel it is, I don't buy it. If they can get people to spend more for things like online passes and DLC than I spend personally, then good on them for finding a business model that works, good on the people who are spending more than I am for having more disposable income than I do, and good on me because the higher prices other people pay are subsidizing the lower prices I pay. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but as far as I can see, the system works.

(In practice, I may or may not fall into the bargain-hunter category at any given time depending on things like how many hours I'm pulling at work, how badly I want the newest new release, etc. I buy my games new and pony up for DLC even when it's a little pricey as often as not, and I have no problem with that. If I didn't feel like it was worth my money at that time, I wouldn't pay; I'd replay an old favorite or hunt up a bargain-bin title from a few years ago instead.)

I WANT a new MS console. Strangely, I want it because MS refuses to fix problems with the 360 that it easily could:

* friend list capped at 100. It's 2011, not 2001. Why can I only have 100 friends? Take a page from Steam and let me have categories and whatnot for friends.

* being matched up against...the entire internet. Again, what person in their right mind would prefer the way you look for games on XBL? No server browser, no filtering for games other than maybe a map you like, or a game mode, but why can't I at least see whether joining my friend's game will put me on his team or against him?

* discomfort of changing audio channels. Are you in a party with friends and you want to talk within the game chat for a few seconds? Tough luck! First you need to go to Xbox guide, go into a menu, press a certain button, then exit the guide...eliminating the game screen and preventing you from participating for about 5-10 seconds. And that's just to switch to the game chat; repeat the process to return. Wouldn't it be nice for the guide button to be paired with a "swap active audio channel instantly" button?

* A useful search system offline. You know all those stupid blades and panes and boxes that we've seen in different XBox experiences? They all suck, don't they? How about having a nice searcch-everything feature for free text? How about being able to filter movies and games and music by price AND release date AND (your characteristic here)?

So, I am assuming that an XBox 3 would fix these problems, and that only an XBox 3 would fix these problems. Cynically, instead I'm confident that the XBox 3 would instead leave these problems and make us pay their monstrous annual fee to their inferior-to-Steam service.

LarryC wrote:

DT, all of those issues are the just the bad sides of good things! Where you see Microsoft having a huge financial meltdown, I see an incident with a company so invested in success that they'd actually ship you a console free of charge outside of their promised warranty period. Where you see Sony bungling majorly, I see a console infrastructure so massive and so populated that it would actually be a target for hackers.

The only comparable development would be PC MMO gaming, and those vaults are protected better than Fort Knoxx. This is a sign of the gaming world stepping forward. Sure, it's a misstep, but it wasn't worse than the PS2 era, in which the most exciting development was adding more polygons to models.

Where you see Nintendo being unreasonable, I see a console being such a wide mass market success that even the most optimistic estimates of the manufacturer couldn't keep up with demand. That's GOOD, not bad.

You're entitled to spin it how you like. Kind of like when they tell you that 10+% unemployment is a good thing because people can spend more time with their families.

I will point out, however, that I find it incredible weird that people on forums in general-- not just here-- will complain about just about just about everything until someone like me turns up and looks at bigger trends. Then everyone becomes Polly Positive and the Not-So-Bads.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what I think. The next console generation is coming soon (Microsoft is already advertising for hardware designers to make the new one. Hopefully they won't rehire the same quality and reliability people that worked on the 360) whether I want it or not, and it will do many things I don't want and won't do many things I do want. You all know they're just going to dump the disc drive, make everything downloadable, and make me get a facebook account in order to do anything with the system-- all of which means I'll end up playing fewer games because 1) there will no longer be a used market where I can dump old games that I don't want anymore and 2) there won't be as many single player games where I don't have to bother with other people. And I'm the only person here who looks at that future with any trepidation at all. Everyone but me loves DLC and multiplayer, because apparently everyone wants to be sociable as long as they don't have to leave the house to do it. The game industry doesn't give a rat's rear end what I think anymore, if it even ever did, and I'm stuck either sucking it up or giving up and reading a book.

And knowing me, not only will the next generation have a bunch of features I don't like but I'll end up picking the exact wrong one when I finally do break down and buy the next gen. It's happened almost every time-- my console of choice this generation was the PS3, which exists on these forums mostly as a punchline or a blu-ray player.

FWIW, my console of choice is /not applicable/. I play games, not consoles. When there are no more games I like, I'll stop playing, but it's not happened yet.

doubtingthomas396 wrote:

1) there will no longer be a used market where I can dump old games that I don't want anymore

Which the the exact situation you have on Steam, and it has resulted in dramatically lower game prices, less hassle, and a more streamlined gaming experience.

2) there won't be as many single player games where I don't have to bother with other people.

Yeah, right.

You say that in what happens to be the year of single player greatness. Batman, Assassin's Creed, Deus Ex, Dragon Age, and Skyrim, among many, many other fantastic single player experiences. The idea that gaming has left the single player experience in the dust is pretty much a farce.

If you didn't like this generation of consoles, it's because you don't like fun, and you got caught up in the fan boy hype in trying to pick the perfect console. We all have preferences and desires. And as little as I think of the PS3, there is no doubt in my mind that I would have enjoyed this generation as much if I had it instead of a 360.

We love to talk about the reasons we prefer one console over another. We even get caught up in hyperbole theater when talking about the weaknesses of consoles we chose not to buy. But you have to divorce yourself from that when actually playing games. Because there is too much fun to be had to get worked up about problems that are not affecting you while you play.

The 360 had massive hardware issues. That resulted in me not having a console to play for 2 weeks out of the 5+ years I have had it. So why where a frown for the 1811 days
i had a blast vs. the 14 I spent doing other things for entertainment in my free time.

But here is what really strikes me as silly in your rant vs. the new gen of consoles. If these are so bad, why don't you want a replacement? Why hold on to this gen for any longer? Mostly, it is those of us that are enjoying this gen immensely that want to hold off.

I'm middle of the road. I can go on with the 360 and Wii for a long time. But I asume I will find a lot to like in the next gen as they improve upon what they have made so far.

Sorry to pick out just one small part of that longass post, but....

doubtingthomas396 wrote:

You all know they're just going to dump the disc drive, make everything downloadable....

Not bloody likely. The Big Three have very good statistics on exactly how many consoles are connected to the Internet, and the number of consoles that have never and will never be net-connected is still far too large and lucrative for them to give that entire section of the audience the proverbial middle finger. Generation after next, maybe, but not this next one.

As far as the death of single-player, that's ludicrous for reasons Jayhawker has cited. The industry has struck an excellent balance between single- and multiplayer experiences that I fully expect to continue for the foreseeable future. There's a reason that even multiplayer-centric releases like Call of Duty always ship with a single-player campaign, short and disposable though it may be.

I do predict a lot more experiments with asynchronous multiplayer (a la Need for Speed's Autolog) and creative ways of working multiplayer and social aspects into otherwise single-player experiences (a la Dark Souls), and I don't see that as anything but an unmitigated good, since it leaves those who aren't interested in such things free to play those games as pure single-player experiences.

Can someone explain to me how games have gotten more expensive to the consumer as consoles have increased in capability? I see people throw out that the next gen will bring higher prices for games.. yet games are still the exact same price I paid for them back during the Atari 2600 and on.

I mean even some SNES and Genesis games retailed for $79 and those weren't even collectors edition.

And please don't give me the DLC argument..

I don't think they have gotten more expensive, personally. Incomes in the US and Japan stagnated, so that may account for the complaints, but yeah, I remember paying $70 for Tecmo Super Bowl for the NES.

I would be curious about console prices. The first console I purchased for myself was the Genesis. Then the Sega Game Gear. Can't remember what I paid for them in 1993-94.

It's sidestepping the question, but two aspects that affects the income from game sales has to be the larger audience it has now, and also the new ways of charging people for games.