Sat down and worked out I'd paid £30 (50USD) for COD4 and that worked out at 6pence (10 cents) per hour of entertainment. That makes it a pretty damn good investment. Not that it's had much competition; it's basically been the only mainstream, multi-million player, decent shooter since CS.
Now I'm always sceptical of new releases but chances are good that MW2 will take over the mantle of foremost PC shooter, they only seem to have tweaked the formula that made COD4 work. Every month sees dozens of hopelessly crap PC releases littered around £25 (40USD) mark that for the most part are ignored and disappear into oblivion (i.e. if you buy it you can barely find any games online).
Why shouldn't a superior product command a superior price? I don't like shelling out £5 more, but it works that way in every other market. Take it or leave it, but I'm willing to bet the balance of CoD4 players buy MW2 in the first month or so.
Edit: a lot of the $10 hate seems to be coming from people only interested in the single player aspect of the game. I thought the single player of the last one was pretty good, but something like 30% of COD4 players have never even bothered with single player at all (according to Activision). The price reflects it's enormous multiplayer potential, so it's less of a good investment for SP only types, but it's not Activision's fault that you're only interested in a small part of what the product offers.
This comment was edited on Aug 18, 2009, 11:56.