I don’t understand the author’s reasoning about buying on release day vs waiting a year. This is no different than buying a new model car in the fall vs the summer of the next year. You will always get a better deal in the summer because the dealer needs to make room for new stock.
The author also tries to use DLC in his argument but fails to acknowledge that the $60 base game is (usually) a complete game. The DLC is optional.
And of all the games he could have considered, he throws Titanfall 2 into the discussion. Whether the game had a $60 or $40 price tag is mostly irrelevant; a lot of the game’s struggle came because of the release date chosen by EA.
When I bought Space Quest 2 in 1987, I feel like I paid around $40. The price of games increased to $50 about 10-15 years later and is now at $60. That doesn’t seem excessive to me since current games are much more elaborate than those of 30 years ago.
Also, my dad tells me he could get a candy bar for a dime 60 years ago.
Movies, on average, are 2-hour entertainment. Video games generally offer at minimum 8-10 hours, sometimes 40-50 hours. Does that now make the $60 price tag viable?
Edit - I’ve put 30ish hours into Fallout 4 in the past week. I spent 101 hours just in season 3 of Overwatch. Could I possibly spend 100 hours in my lifetime watching repeats of a single movie?
Many video games these days offer much more options for replay than the linear games of the 80s and 90s. I feel the $60 price is justified in most cases.
Also, that $60 price is a standard set by Sony/Microsoft. PC games have the option of releasing at a lower price point, as seen with Overwatch.