OK, maybe it's not the end of the world
However, a recent article on yahoo talks about how the PS4 and next gen Xbox may exclude used games, or may possibly not even use physical media. Although I personally think this is unlikely, the article is worth reading.

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in … 39870.html

The article also says:

Think this worst-case scenario is that far off? Think again. It's already starting to happen. Every EA game sold for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 now has anti-used game components built in. New games ship with one-time use codes that give the original owner access to online game play and features. If you try and play one of these titles without the code on a different console or gamertag, it'll cost you extra to get online.

This is a good point. However, I don't think that's such a terrible thing. Basically, these codes are an incentive for people to purchase the game new (and spend more money). This is NOT the same thing as not being able to play a used game -rather, you simply lose out on some "exclusive bonuses". However, these said bonuses can of course come back in the GoTY edition, which many games seem to include. So, that does not bother me one bit.

Of course Sony hasn't confirmed any of these supposedly leaked details, but is it really out of the realm of possibility? The Vita is a prime example of the company's piracy paranoia. It's locked down and vacuum-sealed, made painfully apparent by how tedious it is doing trivial things like transferring files between device and computer. The reason for all the red tape? To combat piracy.

Perhaps, but if you can still play used games on it, I don't really care how difficult it is to transfer files from the computer etc.

This week's PS4 rumor suggests that all games would be tied to a single PSN ID -- so could one sign into their ID on a friend's console thus allowing the "sharing" of the game? We just don't know yet.

I don't like this one bit. At least, the notion that you have to login to play a game. Again, I don't think that will happen, at least not for all games. I can certainly see it for any MMORPG, but if that were to be the case for all games, then I would simply stop purchasing games. Again, I don't think that will happen, and I do think the article raises good points about the future of gaming.

I am completely against all of that, and the implications thereof. I'm sure you all know I'm stuck in my ways, but you can't blame me since the SNES/PS1 gaming era was so good! It's nice to know that I'll always be able to go to a thrift store or a flea market and buy SNES games for $3 without worrying about online activation codes or having to pay an extra fee since someone else owned that game before me. Long live crappy sprites and low-res polygons.

There will always be a market for physical media. It may simply come down to a collectors type thing in the future but the demand will always be there. See: Vinyl.

I posted about this in one of vert's threads... [extra comment deleted]. I barely touch my PS3 as it is (I only got it for the backwards compatibility; I have four PS3 games [three were gifts] I haven't touched) so if they want to do this and pretty much guarantee the fact I won't buy the system because of it let them do it. It's like them revamping Castlevania; I'm not going to lose any sleep over it because I'm not interested.

Still, I'm all for anything that hurts Gamestop... but this would hurt the independent mom and pop shop I get my older games from. I would hate to see that.

Edit:

In the end, just copy and paste what Zane said here as well. I'm not terribly interested in what modern games have to offer anyway... stuck in the past never felt so fine.

Vinyl is not a great example because it is really hard to distribute it digitally. I wish I could buy good vinyl rips from the iTunes store. Usually when people buy a record, usually the intent is to listen to it, not rip it and shelve it.

CD's might be a better example, as they are more commonly ripped and distributed (but still collected) but yes, I agree with what you said.

I think the end factor is cost here. I believe there is pressure to sell more copies to offset production costs and used games cut into those numbers. Or at the very least, publishers are thinking the used games cut into those numbers. Having the media downloadable saves money on the frontend as well, removing the packaging expense. If the perception is that gamers just want the games without the bells and whistles (like a smartphone app), they'll continue in this direction.

It's not just the end of physical media. It's the end of ownership. You will no longer own games. You will be granted a license to access and play games according to the terms the publisher specifies. Can you imagine if car companies put biometric readers in every car they sold new so that if someone other than the original driver attempted to operate the vehicle they would have to pay for the car all over again?

Depends on the companies, I hope that there will be more places like GOG.com which will sell DRM-free games (even somewhat modern ones nowadays), which means that it's easy (and recommended by GOG.com) to backup the install files. Someone do the same for music (please let it be Bandcamp) please. And when that happens, with proper huge catalogues with older stuff, I'm happy to ditch physical media somewhat. At least I don't have to curse about lack of shelf space.

Thought, I would still like to get my books and manga in proper paper form, for some reason, reading those in digital way is just off putting. I want the feel and smell of those in my hands and nose.

The US release of Warriors Orochi 3 on the PS3 is download-only.  At $50.  I ended up ordering the European version, which is a physical release for $60.

I prefer physical copies, but I understand that with devices like the iPad, digital downloads are going to be more and more common.  Honestly, the quality of the software is going to drive whether or not the transition to downloads is successful.  If Diablo III was released as a download-only game, I think a lot of people would complain and whine about it, and in the end, they will buy it anyway.

But one thing that never made sense to me is the idea that a digital item should cost the same as a physical release.  The content may be the same, but the manufacturer is collecting the retail price rather than the wholesale price, doesn't have to physically produce the media, and doesn't have to deal with inventory management and supply issues.  Meanwhile, the consumer gets a product that cannot be resold.  Lower costs for the manufacturer, less value for the consumer.  To me, that should translate to substantially lower costs.

I imported the European releases of Siren and the Ratchet & Clank mini sequel as well because I wanted a physical disc instead of download-only.  Ugh, I hate the future.

I know why ($$$) but I fully agree. Consumer gets a lot less for the same amount of money.

Then again, $60 for a new game that is anything short of must-have is pretty appalling to me still. Definitely not spending that on a digital copy.

I just finished reading a few books (Eon and Eternity by Greg Bear) about a city full of digital people. Even those that chose to remain physical sent out digital representations of themselves (partials) to conduct business. All this talk about video games going digital is easy to deal with mentally, financially, and emotionally. But not socially. This is where I see a problem. Unless we're all digital, just like the games.

Maybe in my lifetime I'll be able to experience one of my dreams from my teenage years. I always thought it would be fun to play DOOM for real. To actually go there, smell the demons, slip in their guts, dodge the fireballs, shoot the barrels. Of course, I'd send one of my partials in.

Am I the only person whose hobby is video games who remembers that this was the normal price (or on the LOW end) for video games before the PS1?  And who realizes that game development costs have gone up AND there's this little thing called inflation?  I mean I'm as much of a cheapass as anybody else (Xenoblade is the first time I'm paying full price for a game in ages) but the constant harping on how much games cost (by everyone on the internet - I'm not singling you out here, GoldfishX) seems a little... misguided?  Take a look at that thread on neogaf of all the developers - and lots of good ones - that have been forced out of business since the beginning of the HD generation.  If consumers continue to demand ridiculous graphics the costs certainly aren't going to go down and the notion that game prices can't go up is going to end up hurting the industry.

To be fair I'm totally in favor of stopping the graphical arms race because I'd much rather still have companies like Hudson around than have super shiny coats of new paint on boring military shooters but that's a whooooooooole other argument.

*edit - fixed double negative.  Dur.

I remember NES carts selling for $45-50 new, but I would usually wait for Toys R Us to do one of their $19.88 sales unless it was a particularly desirable game. Also, Phantasy Star IV was a ridiculous $74 new, but someone else bought it, beat it, and pawned it and I was able to pick it up with the (somewhat useless) strategy guide for $35.

These days I usually wait for "Greatest Hits" versions and price drops. Rock Band 3 came down in price from ~$50-60 to ~$20-30 after six months, and Rock Band 2 still fulfilled my fake drumming fix during that time

THANK you.
A bazillion times this.

We've been paying pretty much the same prices for ages now (I remember some SNES and N64 games being even notably MORE expensive, in the Netherlands at least, not to mention the crazy prices SNES games used to go for in Japan), and yet suddenly for some reason people won't take it anymore, even though they're getting A HELLUVALOT more bang for their buck than they used to.
Moreover, the people who were children then are grown-ups with their own incomes now, so you should actually have MORE money to spend. I could only buy maybe 1 or 2 games a year when I was a wee lad, but I buy at least 2 a month nowadays.

People need to stop whining.

When I was a kid, I would save up a week's worth of pay to pick one Super Nintendo game for $59.99 or $69.99 and I would play it for months. In time, a new game would come out that I really wanted, and I would save up more money and would follow suit with that title as well. If I picked up 3 games a year at $60 a piece, I would end up spending about $15 a month on video games. Now, if you're buying two $60 games a month you're spending eight times as much for games - not to mention the added costs of internet access, additional downloads/DLC, XBox Live membership, etc. That adds up to over $1,400 a year.

Now that we're adults, I look at your argument about having more money to spend in the complete opposite way. Instead of only having to worry about my piddly paper route income so I could buy video games and candy, now there are many other more important things that come up in life that demand my finances: groceries, rent, utility bills, car insurance/gas, etc. As much as I would love to live worry-free and not have to worry about that crap anymore, it's just impossible. (Even though the idea of living back at home playing video games all day with no responsibilities, no car, no relationship and no job is extremely inciting.) The way I look at $60 now is different than I did back when I was a kid, or even several years ago when I was still living at home, back when importing an OST for $50 felt normal (now it feels like highway robbery).

My appreciation and perspective of money (and of the money my parents spent on me when I was an unknowing kid) has changed, so I side with GX's viewpoints. $60 for a video game from my current perspective at this point in my life is just way too much to pay, even though I understand that games have consistently been in that general range when bought as new (especially in the cartridge days). I almost always purchase second-hand in general (always with video games), so I can't justify spending that much when I can go to a thrift store or a local game shop and spend $5 on a video game.

Indeed, with the fact there are so many more choices, adding on all the OLD choices, etc.

And yeah, back at the young age it was much easier to just enjoy a game for months. Granted you might say kids now should be able to, but....yeah I dunno.

F--- graphics. I get sick of the whole "realism" thing. The great thing about old games is even though you had a world presented in front of you you still had to use your flippin' imagination.

And sorry, I don't buy this as the gamer's fault. Sure, players demand things (and are complete graphics whores these days) but console developers control the technology and how much technology is "affordable" to make use of at the time. You don't have to go full throttle and make a $800 system when a $400 system will do. Didn't the Wii prove that? Uh... wait, that might not be the best example.... would have a year or two ago. The competition that comes with free interprise is what drives this s---... if a console maker didn't have a rival(s) the flow of technology would be easy to keep in check.

But seriously, I don't need every wisker on Solid Snake's face to be freaking rendered... at the rate they're going next they'll be showing me his asshair.

I think prices for games these days are perfectly reasonable, because

1)they are less expensive than a few generations ago when inflation is taken into account
2)they are typically much longer and so you get more bang for your buck (although this does not make them more fun)
3)they will go down in price, so all you have to do is be a bit patient

That said, I think the real danger is having entirely digital releases. I feel that in such cases you (the consumer) never actually own the game. You're just renting it. If you're happy with that, then you are set. Myself, I like to actually own games I spend money on. Plus with digital copies they start charging you for this download, and that download, and yes they can do that for non-digital copies as add-ons, but when a game reaches GoTY status, it's often released with ALL downloads for free, on an extra disk or such. So anyway, that's how I feel.

I think I was careful enough with my wording about games being $60 a pop to avoid it from being a general statement about the state of gaming today. My point was that ONLY the games that I consider must-have are worth paying that amount for and there simply aren't that many must-haves for me right now. One example: Bayonetta sure looked nice when I played the store demo, but I wouldn't have paid $60 for it.

To be perfectly blunt and quite negative, I think a lot of developers make really shitty and/or cookie cutter games and simply deserve to go out of business because they can't seem to make games that are worth my time or can successfully justify a full price tag of $60. Honestly, the only things I've really used my 360 for are the Guitar Hero/Rock Band games, fighters (mostly Marvel vs Capcom 3) and neat stuff from Live Arcade. Very few actual retail games. And I've had the system for close to 5 years now.

Now then, let's assume there were games coming out that I considered must-haves. $60, given the cost of development and inflation, would be perfectly fine. Annoying, yes, but generally fine. Hell, who knows, maybe it might look good on a good HD TV down the line, that kinda shit might be worth paying for. And as I implied, I wouldn't be thrilled if I could only get a digital copy of an absolute must-have game at full price, but I would grin and bear it. However, the kicker is that games don't hold their value that well anymore and price drops happen quickly, seemingly to boost sales as soon as the full price stagnates. So there's even the temptation for people to wait a few months for an official price drop for games they actually want.

I look back at the Playstation 1 and just think how it steamrolled the competition by coming out with a library of games that were usually in the $40 range new, which the N64 obviously could not do. Playstation 3 and 360 libraries have enough trouble standing out from each other, I'm surprised one or the other hasn't pushed for lower prices to move more software pieces to try to gain an edge over the other. There is the Wii library, but...Yeah...

I thought this kind of thing was already taking place with current gen consoles. For example, your digital downloads on WiiWare, XBox Live, and PSN, you can't transfer those downloads to other people's consoles to play them, you can't distribute those amongst your friends.

QFT:

Foamy the Squirrel knows what's up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VEQ78WS … 4FTADaM%3D

QFT #2

I say this same thing about music downloads, whether it's from iTunes, Amazon MP3, Rhapsody, or what else is there out there?

Amazon MP3 charges about $7-8, maybe even more, for a digital album, when the print copy costs only $3 more. For $3 more, might as well just by the print copy, and rip it in whatever format I want.

The Gamestops near me have desperate "Buy 2 used games, get 1 for free!" posters slapped all over their windows. I'm not too enthralled with Gamestop's practices either, but lost jobs are never anything to be glad about, unless that good labor is being diverted to worthier causes.

I think we got used to paying less for games during the PSX and PS2 eras, when the medium became cheaper to mass produce, versus cartridges, anyway.

For me, buying a PSX game $20 brand new was absolutely astounding when I first got the PSX, admittedly, 3 years into its life cycle.

As for games being expensive, let's face it: Gaming has always been kind of a "rich person's" hobby - if you have the kind of money to spend on this kind of stuff, and the amount of free time to actually partake of it, chances are, you or your family is/was rather wealthy.

Maybe I'm just a cormudgeny old person these days, but the way I think, I don't need to pay $60 to play a video game, especially given some of the games out there these days *cough*GenericFirstPersonShooterNumberOneMillion*cough*

I will say this about graphics: If they're stylistically unique, or surreal, or artsy, then it's worth it. But I don't need the world outside re-created in a video-game. I play video-games to get away from reality. But being able to tell what things are, or at least being able to get an impression of what something is, is always going to be positive for me.

Also, EA named worst company in America - but not for the reason you think: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57410 … ke-amends/

You know, i brought up this exact point to someone and they said it was in my head because I don't buy newer ("newer" as in current generation) titles. That last part is true but games really DO seem do go down in price quicker these days. It seems a game has to be the s--- to maintain its value.

I've been saying that since 2004, when the PS2 was still relevant. Games I purchased that Summer just plummeted in price - Front Mission 4, Rock Man X Command Mission, Samurai Legend Musashi to name just a few. Man, the crap I used to buy, and actually bothered to play through.

I don't know if I'd call Mega Man X: Command Mission crap. Yeah, it's nothing more than a FFX clone but I thought it was done well enough beyond the story which was pretty disposable. I liked the soundtrack even though I wouldn't give it an A.

Now Samurai Legend Musashi's is a game I really won't bother defending... that game makes me pine for the PS1 original many times over.

Problem with Samurai Legend Musashi, S-E tried borrowing from FFVII too much. Gandrake Enterprises = Shin-Ra Inc. And the motorcycle chases in Samurai Legend Musashi weren't as gripping as the one motorcycle chase in FFVII. I remember the first motorcycle chase in Musashi was just a straight road through a tunnel; the one in FFVII was like a roller coaster ride! Otherwise, the action RPG platformer elements were essentially ripped from Kingdom Sharts, but done arguably better. Soundtrack was catchy, but the game, and especially its plot, were throw-aways.

Rock Man X Command Mission, was an okay RPG. But it got repetitive and monotonous if you tried to play as much in one sitting as you could, like I did. What really chewed my 'nads, though, was how it dropped half of its price by the time I actually got around to playing it. When you live on a fixed income like I do, a lost $20 is a $20 that could've been spent on another game. Or dinner. Or half a tank of gas.

That Summer was the Summer that I learned not to buy games when they first came out, unless they were limited prints, like some of the niche stuff Atlus releases.

(Wait, wasn't this topic about how physical media is dying out? How did we get talking about this?)

I was just thinking about the cost of games recently, and my conclusion is that these days the cost of games is by FAR the best it's ever been. The quality of games is also the best it's ever been.

For example, Dragon Age Origins Ultimate Edition... I don't know how long that takes to complete, maybe 80 hours your first play (or so I've read). The cost: $20. Twenty bucks for a game like that?! Back in the NES/SNES days, that would easily have been a $50-80 game, or more likely it would have had a small limited release and been sold out quickly and then you would sit at home moping since you can't find the blasted game!

Another example, who wants to be Batman? Well, the closest you can become is by playing Arkham Asylum, and it's an amazing experience. Truly cinematic, dark, gritty, and far superior to nearly anything and everything that Hollywood has done! Oh, and the GoTY edition is also in 3D (comes with glasses) and costs a whopping $20!

That said, to each their own what they find fun. Also, I do understand that although $20 is relatively cheap, there may be other goods/necessities people want to spend their money on. However, when all is said and then, I think we're living in very good times for people who like games, although there are of course downsides as well (I'm not going to go into details now). Also, as to why games can be so cheap, well producing a CD and the artwork, manual, is dirt cheap. Once a game sells enough copies and the companies make their money (and typically much more) back, they can then lower the cost and/or release a GoTY edition. That said, even if you paid retail price ($60) for Batman or Dragon Age Origins, I think you're still getting an amazing deal.

I don't know if I'd brag about the quality of games being the highest it's ever been. While some will say it cuts down on taking chances I liked the days when gap between the diamonds and the crap was wider. It helped cut down on my decisions. I was told Batman Forever on the SNES was bad when it came out (of course Nintendo Power didn't flat out say that)... it WAS bad and I saved myself $60.

if it was released now they'd try to charge you an extra $10 to download val kilmer's nipple-suit add-on pack

In my opinion, the quality is absolutely the best it has ever been, no doubt about it. In terms of diversity, it's also the best it has ever been. How many Western RPGs could you play on the SNES? Let's see, there was a horrible port of Ultima VII (the actual PC game was revolutionary), and there was Secret of Evermore... anything else? Yeah, that's just one example, but I think it's a fair example. Here's another example: Catherine. Even if the technology had been available back during the SNES days, I can't imagine such a game back then ever being ported. These days there is SO much to choose from that it almost becomes difficult to pick and choose. But it's far better to be in a land of plenty than a desert in my opinion. Of course, I say this with the notion that I really enjoy many of today's games. I do appreciate the classics of course, but I also appreciate today's technology. Sometimes, you get the best of both worlds where you have classic old-school like games with new world music and sound (Super Mario Galaxy in my opinion).

you've never seen my back yard

My problem with factoring in cost is the time commitment a lot of today's games require. I don't have time for long quests and 10 hour tutorials. Back in the SNES era, a game might have cost $60-$70 and would only last 3-4 hours (let's assume it has no replay value, although all of my favorite 8 and 16 bit games are highly replayable). Might not be worth it to some people. Totally understandable. I have the Sega Genesis Collection and I can't say most of the games on it would have been worth the dough, considering I spent about 10 minutes tops on most of them.

I prefer fighters because you commit as much time as you want to them. Half hour of training? That works. All nighter with friends? Perfect. Same with Guitar Hero/Rock Band a few years ago. Very little time commitment and the time spent is nearly all satisfying gameplay. But most other games feel like chores to me.

Sure, a 100 hours quest for $20 sounds good, but how many of those 100 hours are actually worthwhile gameplay. These days, give me the 3-4 hour 8 and 16 bit games, and have the 3-4 hours be all gameplay.

avatar, I do think it is a good time for western games/genres right now. However, I think the Japanese faction hasn't really been pulling their weight this whole generation. I mean, there are SOME good games out there, but it feels like the developers/publishers are gun-shy or over-safe. Look at Capcom...They seem to lack direction and can't get their shit straight with downloadable stuff and their franchises (ahem, Megaman! and I question the idea of taking Tekken characters and putting them in a Street Fighter-style engine) Or how about Konami, slapping Castlevania on another game that is already in development. Or realizing they screwed up and joined the music game genre in the US too late with the craptastic Rock Revolution. I remember there were times when both companies couldn't do anything wrong. The less said of Square-Enix, the better...

I guess Nintendo's doing okay, if for nothing else, they remember 2D games exist. And SNK is kinda back with King of Fighters XIII, just kinda wish they would make some more stuff.

Personally I perfer short games these days. Unlike when I was a teenager I really don't want the play a 60 hour RPG. I once thought the longer a game was the more value I got out of it - that simply isn't true.

I think you're giving western developers way too much credit here. It's easy to make and sell a lot of games when all you do take a pre-established engine and pop out another first person shooter because the genre is hot. As for the Japanese, they had their moment in the sun when RPGs where the thing on the PS1 - they are still paying for that. It's the same deal; people will eventually get sick of shooting things because of over proliferation and then another genre will be the in-thing. The only question is if eastern or western developers will benefit. Everything comes and goes in cycles.

I'm probably the only Mega Man fan that is - dare I say - happy, glad, pleased that Mega Man has been shelved. Yeah, it's a shame there won't be any more games (and I wanted Mega Man Legends 3 as much as the next guy; well, until I heard a new character was going share the spotlight with Mr. Voulnut) but at least Capcom can't do anymore damage to the name sake. Most of the newer spin-off were terrible anyway - original, X and Legends - is all I'll EVER care about.

Wait, I'm confused. I thought this was initally under the name "Lords of Shadow" just to keep it under wraps. Now your telling me Konami took "God of War Clone 99" and just make it a Castlevania?

Anyway, if Konami wants to do this, I say let them. When it comes to the game series I enjoy - or rather enjoyed - I welcome cutoff points created these kinds of things anymore. Makes my life easier in in the long run not having to follow another series of games.

Okay, now that's just funny...

True dat.

I could elaborate on this, but I won't. I'll just say I agree.

I'd also agree that *mainstream* Japanese developers have been dropping the ball lately, as well, while American and Western developers seem to be thriving. While the Japanese may have taken the auto market from us, it seems like we've taken the video game market from them.

This.

Developers put a lot of padding in their games, just to make you feel like you're getting your money's worth.

I'm not a big fan of running around a wide open, expansive world, just trying to figure out what I'm supposed to do. I'm interested in playing a game, not substituting virtual life for real life. (On the other hand, if someone created a video game that was essentially walking around virtual constructs of real life locations, updated by the minute via internet, I could actually get behind that. Being able to walk around a virtual construct of, say, New York City, from my living room chair would be interesting, especially if I was planning a trip to go there. Something like that might actually prove useful. I'm banking on Google developing something like that).

Simple side-scrolling games, there's absolutely no down time, because you're just supposed to go from point A to point B. Your path is laid out before you, all you have to do is cover it.

There's plenty of instances in which, if they hadn't spent so much time on bonus rounds and the like, they could've done a better job fleshing out the main game.

No specific examples come to mind, but I have experienced such a scenario from time to time.

Aside from that, I probably will end up sinking 60 hours into Xenoblade after I start playing it, but that will be because it's the only game left that I'll have to play at the time. And I'm expecting it to be good, after all the press I've heard about it.

as teens we relished the sheer lethargic state that plopping down in front of a lengthy rpg offered.
now it's like "f---, where did all the time go?"

I just see a lot of high profile western/American games nowadays. Nearly all of them, I have zero interest in and have no plans on playing them, so I'll assume some of them are worth the hype. That's my form of giving credit (is better than just assuming everything is garbage, no?) Japanese developers owned the 8, 16 and 32 bit consoles, but they are nowhere near that type of domination this generation.

I think Capcom was on the right path with Megaman 9 and 10, as well as Legends 3. But to just basically scrap one of your most famous mascots out of spite makes no business sense, for the company making the games or for people willing to buy the games. X was actually the most requested character for Marvel vs Capcom 3 on Capcom Unity, but apparently he did not make the "developers" list, so he still is not in the game.

As far as Castlevania goes, I'm still waiting for a current-gen game that has more depth than CV3. It was painfully obvious Lords of Shadow was not that.

First, thanks to Dartannian for the Foamy the Squirrel link. Good stuff.

As for the prices of games, I know that the $60 games cost today is less in real dollars than the $60 we spent on SNES carts in the 90s, but notice that those SNES games retained their value. If they were good games, they stayed at full price for years. There was no incentive to wait to buy them since waiting usually meant having difficulty finding them and still paying the same price if you could. Today, games usually go on sale for 40-50% off in a few months and optical media has made scarcity a thing of the past.

Let's also not forget the significantly increased competition. Back in the 90s, there were countless games released, but only maybe 10 games a year were actually any good. Today, most games are at least good, and many are great. Since there are so many great games competing for our time and we can only play a limited number of them, why should we buy every game at launch for $60, especially when we observe how fast they come down in price. It just doesn't make sense. The only games I buy at launch anymore are games that I want to play really badly or ones that are rare or restricted from an inventory perspective. The exception to this would be games that I buy for political reasons like Xenoblade which I bought at launch to support the idea of Nintendo localizing niche content for the North American market.

And how can I forget the impact of digital indie games? If I'm paying $10 for something like Fez which is far better than most $60 games out there, what's my incentive to spend $60 on an inferior product that I don't have time to play? I don't want to hear developers whining about how much HD games cost to develop. Don't develop games that are financially unsound. There are countless big budget games that have come out recently that any gamer could have looked at in alpha and told a publisher: don't do it, you will lose millions. For an upcoming example, look at Capcom's Dragon's Dogma. There's no reason for that to exist, and I will be shocked if Capcom doesn't lose it's shirt on that one. It brings nothing to the table, and I would have canceled it in pre-production.