LogFAQs > #890868973

DuranOfForcena posted...

that's exactly my point. people don't want to see any higher than a $60 base price tag on games. if it's higher, they won't buy it. and that's because games have always been that price, even 25 years ago. but $60 25 years ago is not the same as $60 today. hence, gaming companies have had to resort to other methods of getting more money out of their products, almost entirely more sketchy and underhanded than simply raising the base price. so, like it or not, we as consumers brought these s***ty monetary practices on ourselves. that's the truth.

no it is not. volume has dramatically risen over time. people don't pay $60 because "it always cost $60", they pay that because they feel it's not a good deal above that price. if that $60 is worth $50 in last decade's money, then the perception of value in a single video game has gone down.

given that the total volume of video games has dramatically risen, perceiving one game to have less value is completely natural and consistent with every other product development cycle ever.

selling an item with a fixed development cost for 40% less per item, but with a sales volume that is 100% greater, is a net gain to the developer

the problem is development cycles have ballooned in cost, which is absolutely not the customers' fault--in fact, high volume sales of relatively low-development cost games demonstrates that the fault for this scenario is entirely on developers who insist on including high-cost elements they cannot afford
---

And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.