Tripled? $5.99 to $9.99 isn't even double.

Interplay was in financial trouble, I can't remember if they filed for bankruptcy protection, went bankrupt or whatever, but their entire catalogue of games was removed from the store at one point temporarily if my memory serves correct, another company bought out their catalogue and returned the games to the store. (Someone correct me if my memory is wrong.)

With Interplay being in financial trouble, they dropped prices and had big deep discount sales of up to 90% off all their games back then, presumably just to try to make a buck as fast as possible to try to stay above water. Whoever acquired their IP mind you was most likely in a financial position where what they paid for the IP and what it was worth gave them a wider margin of room to charge more for the games closer to what their real value is in the marketplace and raise the prices of the games as a result to achieve the return on investment they hoped to get from deciding to buy and thus save the games from extinction.

At the end of the day a game is worth whatever the company that owns them is charging for them, and if that statement is correct the company makes money from their sales and stays in business. If that statement is incorrect, then people will differ in opinion moreso about the price than what the IP owner is banking on, and the games will not sell in enough volume to bring the desired IP, thus turning out to be a bad investment. In the latter case they simply would lower the price again presumably to trim the margins and try to find the sweet spot where the price of the game(s) actually matches the value the marketplace is willing to pay for them and sustain a profit point.

Important to note that just because any one of us, or small group of us individuals does not perceive a given game or list of games from some company as being worth more than a certain dollar amount, does not mean the marketplace as a whole values them at the lowest of price points. Also what must be taken into account is that game companies commonly set the regular price of things at a greatly overpriced price point knowing many consumers wont buy it at that price anyway and will buy it when it goes on sale for 75% off, creating artificial scarcity with which to stimulate whimsical sales with deep discounts.

There are games on GOG and Steam which were in the bargain bins at Walmart, Zellers etc. 1-2 decades ago for $2. What makes those games suddenly worth $5-10 or more, is that people are willing to pay more for them now than 20 years ago, either regular price or on sale for 50-75% off. One other big difference though is the cost to a developer/publisher/retailer for a boxed physical game not selling is it takes up shelf space and reduces overall store cash flow, eventually being sent back to the publisher as unsellable, but in the digital online world the cost is essentially zero, a game that sells zero copies simply doesn't produce any revenue until it does sell a copy, but there is no shelf space overhead, return costs of unsellable merchandise etc. so low risk to over-pricing and creating artificial scarcity.

Prices on games drop when they don't sell enough copies to satisfy the expected revenue streams of the companies selling them. If they don't drop, then they are producing that profit and are thus priced at what the market as a whole does value them at.

So, are they overpriced? Not really, they're exactly priced. :)

They are certainly overpriced

For me, what I find is that certain gameplay styles have died out (or at least become scarce) over the years. For example, turn-based non-tactical combat, which was found in the earliest WRPGs, is nowadays only found in JRPGs, which have the downside of being infested with story and cutscenes that I often don't want. There's also the fact that JRPGs moved from invisible random encounters to something I consider worse; enemies moving in real time, turning the game into an action game at times.

There was also a time when 2D platformers were scarce; you didn't see that many outside of portable handlends at one point. The Nintendo 64 was focused on 3D hardware, encouraging developers to make 3D (rather than 2D) games, while Sony of America had a no-2D policy during part of the PlayStation's lifespan. They have made a resurgance in more recent years (Timespinner, the just released game that I am playing right now, is an example), but back then you didn't have such games.

In any case, there just aren't that many games like Dragon Quest 1-3 and the original Final Fantasy these days. (Dragon Quest 1 is an interesting example; it's a turn-based single-character non-tactical RPG that is open word; can you name any more recent games that are like this?)

Then don't buy.

It's not 10$, it's 13.70
They're also putting out games that aren't even old
And I haven't seen judas anywhere on this site in probably 5 years, what happened to him, is he okay

Here he is.

Oh thank goodness! And thank you!!

You're welcome. Here is their Twitch Schedule, if you want to watch them.

That's because 10 usd is about 13 cad right now, I presume.

Edit: just saw you're the OP of the other thread, in which I mentioned the same thing. Sorry about that.

But 13.70 CAD, yes? The old $5.99 & $9.99 price points were in USD, from the time before GOG supported any other currencies or had regional pricing (both of which they started doing aaaages ago). Assuming 13.70 is the CAD equivalent of $9.99 U.S. + a sprinkling of Canada regional price adjustment on top, you can bet that $5.99 U.S. wouldn't actually be 5.99 in your currency, either.

But even assuming 1.) that the price rise happened all at once; 2.) that it happened at all recently; 3.) that the previous price was exactly 5.99 for you; and 4.) that the prices in question are in the same currency: 13.70 is still nowhere near three times 5.99.