But games 100% do not cost the same as they did before. Games are monetized much more then 20 years ago, 20 years ago you paid 60 and that was it, they never saw another dime from you until they released a new product.
Yes, but that doesn't apply for all games, and of course this increase in cost has different true value across different products.
For the most part, I avoid games that charge a pricey upfront cost and then expect a ton of additional revenue over time unless it's something I really seriously desire. Overall though, I am pretty judicious with both my time and money spent on video games in that I only spend both of those resources on stuff I know I'm really going to enjoy a lot.
For me, I'd much rather pay more up front than pay less and be nickle and dimed even more. Yes, the nickel and diming is happening regardless, and in the most egregious of those kinds of examples, my argument is that those games are definitely not worth (typically) the upfront cost that they ask, regardless of whether that upfront cost is $60 or $70.
And honestly, the return-on-investment for most games (for me anyway) is usually worth it for the amount of enjoyment over time I get for the price I will pay upfront.
Like I said in one of my other posts in this thread, it's less a problem of 'costs' and more a problem of what people actually 'value'.
If someone doesn't think a game is worth the asking price, they have every right to wait for a discount or spend their money and time in other locations.
For me, if another ten bucks is a necessary sacrifice for high quality, envelope pushing, cutting edge games, then it's worth it for me. And honestly, developers have subtly raised the upfront cost on many games for awhile now, they've just done it by saying "oh get "Early Access" before the release date!", which is functionally just a higher upfront cost and a built in discount over time in the MSRP.
It does suck for the people outside of the U.S. though, that's definitely true.
