While I agree with a lot of your comment I am still waiting for the "glitch free and balanced game" ;)

Part of my point in mentioning that is that we as customers expect that perfect product but have an artificially low number in mind when we attempt to give that perfect product a monetary value. As for quality control in gaming - that is going to be a big issue for the community at large over the next few years. The PC community seems to be slipping into this "paid alpha" model more and more - and though this is currently hard to see happening on consoles, it isn't beyond comprehension. The main obstacle at the moment is update fees for devs, however I'm sure console manufacturers could easily figure out ways to waive those or reduce them, whilst still maintaining income - probably by charging us in some sneaky new way. I hate to invite this fate - but it could easily happen.

Trust me, I am fine with paying for games but when I spend money and am provided with sub standard service I expect top quality customer service or refunds, it has to be said that console games (in my experience) have neither.

[quote]There is no way we will convince the industry to bring prices back down to $45 for a full game including DLC - that's uneconomic. If we expect them to pay their employees fair wages, make a glitch free and balanced product, provide us with decade long support on top of making a profit as a business within a capitalist market economy, we have to accept that prices will continue to rise and cannot be kept artificially stagnant. The only reason we want prices to stay stagnant is because average wages have been kept artificially stagnant for the last 30 years both in the USA and Europe.[/quote] Bumped for EMPHASIS. Videogames are the only sector of the economy where consumers seem to want to demand more and more....but are UNWILLING to pay ANYTHING for that increased quality or service. NO other business would tolerate this. They'd just jack up prices, and tell their consumers to just either deal with it.....or go without. Though wagest haven't stagnated for artificial reasons. Automation and (more importantly) globalization has forced the average worker to have to compete with workers in third-world countries working for pennies per day. Whereas their manager and executives don't have to compete in the same sort of lopsided economic arena.

The point is that video games [b]have[/b] increased in price - just instead of boosting the up front price, they have been either microtransactioned (as technology has allowed this), have been parcelled up into smaller bundles of "DLC", have been released as paid ALPHAS (see PC gaming), etc. Sure there are some games where these tactics aren't employed, but they feel like they are becoming rarer. Along with the rise of pre-ordering, this is the most hated (and yet accepted) aspect of modern gaming. The fact of the matter is that most products we purchase today are heavily discounted - leveraged against future costs (like printers being cheaper than new ink cartridges as a petty example). Games are no different - vendors & publishers & manufacturers want to sell as much as possible, and these tactics [b]work[/b].

Because they have to. The problem in the gaming industry is that you have a DISCONECT between gamers and developers over what is the market value of AAA game. Gamers----despite nearly 20 years and games exploding exponentially in size, complexity, and post-release servicing----want to believe that the market value is still $60....and that all these "schemes" are just ways of "cheating" them out of additional money. Developers realize that costs have exploded along with the features of game....and that the TRUE market value of AAA is now about $120. The problem is that the vast majority of gamers are cash-poor kids and young adults, who resist this economic reality tooth-and-nail. So the developers/publishers have been forced to find ways to COAX that additional $60 out of consumers, so that they aren't forced to simply stop making the product, or to severely cutback on the quality of the product in order to meet an unrealistically low pricepoint.

See, when I think of a $120 AAA I think think: "so how much should the console be costing?" Are parts so cheap that with the purchasing power of a megacorp you can make a $400 console economically? I know consumers can build similar Steam boxes for not much more - so maybe. But it could also be that Sony/MS know they will make so much from: -Digital games retail -Network passes -Update fees -Microtransactions (like avatar clothes) -Entertainment streaming (presumably they get some value out of linking us up to Netflix and Youtube and Twitch) -Ad revenue (there is usually a moveie ad on the XBL homepage... which someone is paying someone for) etc that they can afford to sell their platforms cheaply to entice in customers to use a cash cows.

Now you're getting it....

Why is it though? - Spreads income and reduces the effects of sales spikes - allows more competition between manufacturers & between retailers - increases the customer population density - reduces the maximum customer investment size to one more proportional to earning So partly it's a business model that keeps a constant income, and partly it is psychological management of customers. I think what we are seeing at the moment is the impact of the [b]frequency[/b] of transactions that customers are being expected to pay. There must be some critical threshold between monetary value and frequency where customers are just happy enough to pay and manufacturers maintain their income. I think whatever pressures are on manufacturers at the moment are pushing them more towards this threshold - inevitably making their tactics more obvious and increasing the number of customers who become aware of the nature of their relationships with manufaturers. I remember massive outrage over BF4 and then still more when DICE said something like - "we're monitoring, but not seeing a major effect on sales" (serious paraphrasing)... which implies that they had yet to find the balance point between outrage and sales. I think Destiny is sailing closer to the wind - however their massive customer base most likely can support more outrage.

Outrage isn't the dangerous emotion. Apathy is.

dangerous to who though? apathy in consumers is dangerous to consumers outrage in consumers is dangerous to producers apathy in producers is dangerous to both - so in a way I take your point.