Why did renting games become less popular in the modern era?

[bikingjahuty]

Digital killed the rental.

This, as did rental delivery services like early Netflix which allowed you to rent pretty much as many movies as you wanted, albeit one at a time (unless you paid a bit more), for what it would cost you to rent a couple of movies from Blockbuster.

I miss video rental stores sorely and wish they were still around, but why they pretty much went extinct is no mystery.

[burningdoom]

How is VHS more unreliable? They don't scratch, they aren't prone to disc-rot, and they're a lot harder to physically break. About the only thing you've really got to worry about is keeping them from moisture and magnets.

[sworddude]

How is VHS more unreliable? They don't scratch, they aren't prone to disc-rot, and they're a lot harder to physically break. About the only thing you've really got to worry about is keeping them from moisture and magnets.

Rewinding can take it's toll you will be missing parts of a movie sound etc, I remember some of my old vhs tapes going bad and missing pieces at some point. Aging also takes it toll on vhs tapes. I guess it will work for a longer period of time when abused however you will be missing small pieces of the movie overtime wich does not happen with cd's. Not a vhs collector btw but I do have some vhs tapes of my past.

It's not that great to be honest, with dvd's you have disc repair an easy fix. and with blue ray scratches are almost a thing of the past.

Sure discs have disc rot wich is very rare to be honest I've only seen it with bad condition discs in my country never with excellent ones. But vhs tapes also age and it will become more and more fragile when times goes by. in my opinion vhs is way less reliable.

Video tape on your vhs can scred overtime when that happens it is beyone repair the shelf life of a vhs tape might be less than that of a dvd also when it is not used since it has become to fragile to use. Missing parts of a movie and a shorter shelf life not to great of a format   

Just like discs with care it could last allot longer but I'm pretty sure the shelf life of a vhs tape is less than that of discs from what I have seen. Also I'm pretty sure that something else will destroy a disc at the end of it's life span instead of disc rot. Disc rot is something on bad discs or when it has been stored in a bad climate it is a pretty rare thing unless your going for mediocre condition stuff and even than it is pretty hard to find. I have seen way more discs than many of you guys disc rot is not something one should worry about to much It's very rare.

VHS isn't as great as one might think. There is a reason why so many people try to convert their vhs to digital they will die allot sooner than cd's .

Many people give discs the hate but many people still use them while vhs is not that desired unwanted so less people complaining.  Cd's are a more reliable format and they last a bit or probably allot longer the newer discs might even last an eterinity as far as blue rays ps4 xbox one discs etc go. Sure a dvd is thin and fragile you could break it in half a vhs can fall on the ground without any damage but that's the only durability/ armor it has in the short term.

[burningdoom]

Rewinding shouldn't hurt tapes at all, unless your VCR is defective or something.

If your VCR is shredding tapes, though, that means you need to use a head cleaner tape, or open her up and clean them yourself. That's basic maintenance that you need to do if you own a VCR at all. You can still buy head-cleaners at Wal-Greens and Rite-Aid.

[sworddude]

Rewinding shouldn't hurt tapes at all, unless your VCR is defective or something.

If your VCR is shredding tapes, though, that means you need to use a head cleaner tape, or open her up and clean them yourself. That's basic maintenance that you need to do if you own a VCR at all. You can still buy head-cleaners at Wal-Greens and Rite-Aid.

if I were you I would look things up online

VHS tapes have way less shelf life than cd's wich might eventually get disc rot before they die out. This is ofcourse an example if both formats have been kept well.

Not to mention that even if it still works the quality is degrading in those vhs tapes wich with cd's is not an issue at all.

[burningdoom]

I don't need to look it up. I'm talking from experience. I own 1000s of VHS that I still watch regularly. Collect movies of all formats. And my dad always collected them, too. Always been around the VHS, and a lot of it. In fact, a lot of my collection now was his collection, I got those when he passed away.

What exactly do I need to look up? That you need to put a head-cleaner in your VCR if it's eating tapes? Absolutely common knowledge for anyone familiar with VHS.

What exactly makes you believe that it has a shorter shelf life? Plastic takes forever to degrade. And the plastic shell is there to protect the film inside.

Let me clear here, I'm not arguing that VHS is a better format that DVD or Blu-Ray. Obviously VHS has the lowest picture quality (except for maybe video-CD). Just about the reliability comment. They're solidly built and will last you your entire lifetime as long as it's not exposed to moisture, extreme temperatures, or magnets. And the data can't be chipped or scratched away as long as you aren't opening up your tapes and getting violent with them.

Honestly, these formats really haven't been around to get solid data. As of now, the first VHS, CD, or DVD made should all still run and play just fine as long as it's kept properly. I have VCD Discs (older than VHS), that still run and play just fine. I have records and 8-tracks that still play fine. And most of us have Atari carts that run a-okay. I don't think it's a problem we're really gonna run into in our lifetimes, with the way people like us keep our collections in good shape.

[sworddude]

I don't need to look it up. I'm talking from experience. I own 1000s of VHS that I still watch regularly. Collect movies of all formats. And my dad always collected them, too. Always been around the VHS, and a lot of it. In fact, a lot of my collection now was his collection, I got those when he passed away.

What exactly do I need to look up? That you need to put a head-cleaner in your VCR if it's eating tapes? Absolutely common knowledge for anyone familiar with VHS.

What exactly makes you believe that it has a shorter shelf life? Plastic takes forever to degrade. And the plastic shell is there to protect the film inside.

Let me clear here, I'm not arguing that VHS is a better format that DVD or Blu-Ray. Obviously VHS has the lowest picture quality (except for maybe video-CD). Just about the reliability comment. They're solidly built and will last you your entire lifetime as long as it's not exposed to moisture, extreme temperatures, or magnets. And the data can't be chipped or scratched away as long as you aren't opening up your tapes and getting violent with them.

Honestly, these formats really haven't been around to get solid data. As of now, the first VHS, CD, or DVD made should all still run and play just fine as long as it's kept properly. I have VCD Discs (older than VHS), that still run and play just fine. I have records and 8-tracks that still play fine. And most of us have Atari carts that run a-okay. I don't think it's a problem we're really gonna run into in our lifetimes, with the way people like us keep our collections in good shape.

Cd's have a higher shelf life compared to vhs only thing I'm saying as far as expectations go between the two formats.

But you are correct there is no solid data as of yet since otherwise allot more discs or vhs tapes should have been unusable wich has not been the case yet when where talking about the properly kept ones.

[marvelvscapcom2]

I think it's a little bit of a lot of things.  Y'all have nailed it.

Games got cheaper to own. 
Games were longer.  It wasn't as fun to just play for a weekend.
Discs weren't as durable.  Cartridges were tanks!

It just became less and less profitable for business to rent games.

Thanks for sharing everyone .  The discussion has been very informative and fun . 


I'm not so sure I agree with some of the explenations though.  Because like others have said blockbuster was still extremely lucrative with Disc based media in movie format and during the PS1 era. It was only at around 2005 where they dropped rapidly and only until about PS3/360 era when they fully died. 

And the games got cheaper to own argument is something I don't get much. 



37.99 for a new game back than, some were 40 or a little more, but with inflation from the early 90s it equals about what we pay today.   

Based on my inflation calculator, 40 in 1994 translates into 68.28.   So games might have gotten slightly cheaper but let's also remember how much those games costed to make.  Carts were more money to produce. 

Playstation was 299.99 at launch, translated to 2018 is about 510 which about the going rate of a One X or PS4 pro.  So I think they are on par with the inflation of pricing with the time .   

[sworddude]

More like 50 - 70 $ before tax except for some compilations of older games that's like 100$ each game

The console was more expensive on release so this is already a bit later considering that street fighter alpha 2 is one of the last snes releases

And while inflation is a thing this was allot of money back than

Chrono trigger was 80 brand new and phantasy star 4 for the sega genesis a whopping 100$ proabably without taxes  would be like 170 ish for phantasy star 4 excluding taxes.

Don't forget that very few titles hold that 50 60$ mark most drop in value by quite allot in just a couple of months if not weeks if were talking about ps4 etc

People had less money to spend and games were more pricy, no fast major price drops etc. Allot of titles don't even release for the original high retail prices anymore.

your ad has older games wich already sold allot of copies so naturally price get lower a bit as years go by. However it doesn't happen in just a few weeks like current gen games

[emporerdragon]

And while inflation is a thing this was allot of money back than

Inflation shows why it was a lot of money back then. $60 in the early to mid 90's had the same purchasing power as $100-110 does today.
Games got cheaper and cheaper to buy with almost every generation, with the only exception being when people jumped from Xbox/PS2 to 360/PS3, as the sticker price rose from an average of $50 to $60.

[marvelvscapcom2]

More like 50 - 70 $ before tax except for some compilations of older games that's like 100$ each game

The console was more expensive on release so this is already a bit later considering that street fighter alpha 2 is one of the last snes releases

And while inflation is a thing this was allot of money back than

Chrono trigger was 80 brand new and phantasy star 4 for the sega genesis a whopping 100$ proabably without taxes  would be like 170 ish for phantasy star 4 excluding taxes.

Don't forget that very few titles hold that 50 60$ mark most drop in value by quite allot in just a couple of months if not weeks if were talking about ps4 etc

People had less money to spend and games were more pricy, no fast major price drops etc. Allot of titles don't even release for the original high retail prices anymore.

your ad has older games wich already sold allot of copies so naturally price get lower a bit as years go by. However it doesn't happen in just a few weeks like current gen games

Did the governemnt or some higher power place a protocol or rule on how they can price their games?  I only ask because it seems now a days every single new release is 60 USD if it's not a collectors or limited.   Sometimes amazon or walmart has cheaper but it seems regardless of console all 3 of the big consoles have the same starting MSRP.   Was this implimented by the government or something?    

Because based on your ad some games started at 70-100 while others were 50-60.   Seems like their was no real governing of it at all.  I'm not too in the know of the laws or how it works.  But now it seems like their is less guessing involved.  every new game will most likely be 60 in the US.  .


But this is definitely a great reason as to why.  It seems like games were insanely priced back then especially with the economy at that time and the buying power of the dollar.    Seems like games dropped probably due to the cost to make them because carts were so costly to make and maybe people wouldn't rent anymore because they could afford it outright now . 

[emporerdragon]

Did the governemnt or some higher power place a protocol or rule on how they can price their games?  I only ask because it seems now a days every single new release is 60 USD if it's not a collectors or limited.   Sometimes amazon or walmart has cheaper but it seems regardless of console all 3 of the big consoles have the same starting MSRP.   Was this implimented by the government or something?    

It's because of human psychology that we see pricing like this in items. A company can certainly release a game at a lower price point than the average, but it will then carry a stigma of being a lower-quality budget game and will sell less as a result. Conversely, if they instead chose to release the game at a higher price, then the company would need to prove as to why the game is worth more and as such should cost more. However, most people would not find any reason for the price increase to be acceptable, thus also hurting sales, as by raising the price, they're now making the competition look like better deals. Because of this, companies were forced to find other ways to make more money out of their games, and so, because of this, we now have DLC, microtransactions, and lootboxes.

[sworddude]

Did the governemnt or some higher power place a protocol or rule on how they can price their games?  I only ask because it seems now a days every single new release is 60 USD if it's not a collectors or limited.   Sometimes amazon or walmart has cheaper but it seems regardless of console all 3 of the big consoles have the same starting MSRP.   Was this implimented by the government or something?    

It's because of human psychology that we see pricing like this in items. A company can certainly release a game at a lower price point than the average, but it will then carry a stigma of being a lower-quality budget game and will sell less as a result. Conversely, if they instead chose to release the game at a higher price, then the company would need to prove as to why the game is worth more and as such should cost more. However, most people would not find any reason for the price increase to be acceptable, thus also hurting sales, as by raising the price, they're now making the competition look like better deals. Because of this, companies were forced to find other ways to make more money out of their games, and so, because of this, we now have DLC, microtransactions, and lootboxes.

Titles like chrono trigger and phantasy star IV had bigger format memory cardridges wich resulted in a higher cost if I'm not mistaken. There was a difference but there were exception for crappy games since there were no guide lines.

Not to mention that most new games started off at 60 70 ish Dk country 3 etc before they eventually would lower in price.

[matimo]

Blame the internet lol.

[oldgamerz]

Digital killed the rental.

I agree on this as well. But I also can't stand the thought of all video games going digital download only as I prefer physical to digital