DragonRouge said:
There, you just cracked the code for smart gaming. No game or system is worth buying at launch price. If more people where patient, maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have $70 games now. |
And then all those developers experiencing crunch time would have their bonuses and salary slashed, many would lose their jobs and those remaining would have even more work consolidated into their day to day workload. When you hurt a business' finances, the billionaires aren't the ones suffering. It's the working class that suffers. In this case, even at $70, games aren't making what they made back in the 80's (if you count inflation) and are certainly more proportionally expensive to develop now. So if we were to all do as you suggest, we'd either have an overstressed, shrinking, underpaid workforce making games compared to what we have now, or games will start seeing significantly lower budgets and won't be nearly as grand as we expect them to be. Which of those two options would you pick so that you can save that extra $10-20 (or whatever you deem a reasonable price) per game?
Personally, I wish games would become more expensive so that anyone in software development can be more properly compensated for their high-demand, crunch-time-style jobs.
