More people marked "no" and I really have to wonder why.
Remember in the "good ol' days" when all the content was on the cartridge/disc, so you paid 1 price for the whole game? The proposition in the OP is, effectively, that.
Are you guys who are marking "no" making that answer because of the price of $80 (I saw a couple responses that are, more or less, "gamers are being charged too much already)? Well, guess what? You're actually being spoiled right now. You're paying less for games! Development costs are going through the roof, yet you're paying less money for the content.
When games were "whole" and everything about the game was in one package, you were paying $40, $50, $60, sometimes $70 for a game!
The first set of ads looks to be 1996 ($200 PS1. "97" year for sports titles. $200 N64 [price was cut to $149 in early 1997]. Etc.). Well, $40, $50, $60, and $70 in 1996 = $61.45, $76.81, $92.18, and $107.54 in 2016, respectively.
So, technically, $80 is pretty reasonable for a game. And if that included all post-launch content as well? I'd be happy to pay that much, knowing the historical context of the cost of games and not just thinking games are "too expensive" now when they're the cheapest they've ever been.
