about games giving too much value nowadays: i disagree. DLC is usually a joke: 1-5 hours additional gametime doesn't mean anything in the long run... in fact, those usually are the most expensive hours per dollar/euro of the games.

my average time per game used to be WAY higher in the 90s or early 00s than it is now. i played games like Grand Prix 2, The Settlers 2, Starcraft, Diablo 2, Football Managers, Dungeon Keeper etc. for YEARS. If anything, these new cinematic games lack the replay value of the classics and are played a lot less by me. The other difference between those classics and games nowadays is that there have not been sequels every single year, making last years game obsolete. of course there have always been sequels, but nowadays every big IP releases at least one title per year. i am not surprised fewer players are buying them with each year. actually it surprises me that so many are still buying them each year.. and day 1 when the price is very high, too.

He is 100% right.

A game nowadays can give you even hundreds of hours of entertainment and yet we pay no more than $60 for it.

I got 100 hours with Dragon Age paying only $60 (actually I got it for free but... you understand the point).

Over 250 hours with Enemy Territory: Quake Wars for just $50.

Over 150 hours so far with Bad Company 2 for just $50.

Over 100 hours with Fallout 3.

And I've spent over 1500 hours on Oblivion paying only $90 (PC version and later the X360 version). Although that's an extreme case.

The value or bang for buck in games nowaydays can be amazing. No wonder publishers must change their payment model or else revenue will go down because we simply don't have time to play all these games.

Then obviously you aren't the type of gamer that the publishers have a problem with. You pay your $60 for a cinematic game, mostly for the single player and that's it, that's all fine.

But this is about the people who put hundreds of hours into one single game due to the addictive online. Should these gamers also get away with just paying $60 for a game that gives them ten or twenty times more hours of entertainment than the single player guy gets? All resulting in a big segment of the consumer market buying only one or two games per year because they simply don't need more. That's the question.

And the pricing of a 2-3 hour DLC is actually an effort by the publishers to try to reflect the "real" value measured in hours. It's their way of trying to increase revenue and to address this "problem" of the gamer market (on average) getting too much value for their buck nowadays.