Beamer wrote on Nov 21, 2017, 18:03:
Want to reiterate, in general, that I'm not arguing that I want games to be more expensive (and no one seems to think I am, but that surprises me.)

I just feel like we're on borrowed time with this pricing and recommending people enjoy it. It's one of those times where you realize you're kind of getting away with something and it won't last.

Nah. Games are a luxury good. This is why the price for them is less, comparatively, than in the past. There is far more competition for the entertainment dollar than ever before. Beyond a certain price-point, consumers will find another good they feel is more economical and stop buying games. This is the reason for "collector's editions," etc. Gamers expect additional content to justify expenses beyond the standard $60 they pay (in the US).

In fact, game prices are not going to go up for the foreseeable future. At the most, when the economics no longer support a "AAA" game at $60, you will see the death of the "AAA" game before you see the increase in standard price.

AAA game companies are still making gigantic profits from the $60 price points. But they'd already charge you $100 a game if they thought you'd buy it. If you won't buy it at $60, they'll either start selling it at $40, or they'll stop making it. This is why games go on sale way more often today than in the past.

All this talk of game value structure borders on economic illiteracy. Game prices will be the maximum the market will bear. And if they can nickle and dime you with loot boxes, too, they will...