This

Its stupid, Anyone who bought a $500 or $600 console at launch should NOT be talking about complaining about Money

Anyone who spends money to PLAY online should NOT be complaining.

Anyone who spends over $700 for a super 1337 chip set to run the latest and greatest games should NOT be complaining about a 10 dollar increase on games. 

                       "$100 buck? Damn, I guess I'm just getting the standard edition which is $5...WTF $60 bucks??

It all started when Activision had the audacity to start charging $60 for the PC version of Modern Warfare 2. Activision realized that after the success of Modern Warfare, they can pretty much charge any amount they please for the sequel and PC gamers would still flock to buy it. Of Course, if you’re into the multiplayer aspect of Modern Warfare 2, then the game comes packed with hundreds of hours of game play, so it’s safe to assume that Activision, somehow, got away with it, but when Assassin’s Creed 2, a single player game with absolutely no multiplayer and a horrible DRM that serves to punish legit buyers, is selling for $60 and the upcoming standard editions of Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are also selling for $60 too, things have gotten too far ,and we can see that a new trend is emerging.

Of course, you may come and point out the fact that console games cost $60 too. Why should PC gamers have to pay $50 when console gamers have to pay $60? Well, On top of the $50 that publishers set for their games to be sold on the console, they will also need to pay about, or more than, $10 per copy licensing fee to Microsoft and Sony respectively in order for them to sell the games on their console in the first place, which you guessed it, you pay for, but, unlike console gaming, there are no licensing fees for PC games. In fact, Microsoft, themselves, offers publishers to put the “Games for Windows Live” in their games free of charge. After this, we can only deduce that publishers who price their games $60 on the PC earn more money per game sold on the PC than do they earn per game sold on the console.

When someone asks on a forum, what is the reason behind all this pirating? A number of answers can be heard, such as “because I can” or “because games are too expensive”. The fact that games are becoming more expensive should in some ways exacerbate the whole pirating issue publishers are ranting about, and when publishers like Ubisoft deter customers by raising the price tag and by forcing a completely unnecessary DRM to play a single player game and then complaining about low sales is just really pathetic. As for Blizzard, I have no doubt that, no matter, the price tag that are put on their games, their games will sell like hot cake. Of course, is the raising in price tag necessary? Is Activision getting a little too greedy? I will have no doubt that some of you do think that Blizzard games are worth every penny of that $60, and that you can recoup the money lost by restricting yourself from $10 worth of beer, but remember, by thinking like this, you are advocating the new trend.

http://www.grandtheftpc.com/2010/04/why-are-pc-gamers-paying-60-now.html

Lastgengamer said:                        "$100 buck? Damn, I guess I'm just getting the standard edition which is $5...WTF $60 bucks?? It all started when Activision had the audacity to start charging $60 for the PC version of Modern Warfare 2. Activision realized that after the success of Modern Warfare, they can pretty much charge any amount they please for the sequel and PC gamers would still flock to buy it. Of Course, if you’re into the multiplayer aspect of Modern Warfare 2, then the game comes packed with hundreds of hours of game play, so it’s safe to assume that Activision, somehow, got away with it, but when Assassin’s Creed 2, a single player game with absolutely no multiplayer and a horrible DRM that serves to punish legit buyers, is selling for $60 and the upcoming standard editions of Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are also selling for $60 too, things have gotten too far ,and we can see that a new trend is emerging. Of course, you may come and point out the fact that console games cost $60 too. Why should PC gamers have to pay $50 when console gamers have to pay $60? Well, On top of the $50 that publishers set for their games to be sold on the console, they will also need to pay about, or more than, $10 per copy licensing fee to Microsoft and Sony respectively in order for them to sell the games on their console in the first place, which you guessed it, you pay for, but, unlike console gaming, there are no licensing fees for PC games. In fact, Microsoft, themselves, offers publishers to put the “Games for Windows Live” in their games free of charge. After this, we can only deduce that publishers who price their games $60 on the PC earn more money per game sold on the PC than do they earn per game sold on the console. When someone asks on a forum, what is the reason behind all this pirating? A number of answers can be heard, such as “because I can” or “because games are too expensive”. The fact that games are becoming more expensive should in some ways exacerbate the whole pirating issue publishers are ranting about, and when publishers like Ubisoft deter customers by raising the price tag and by forcing a completely unnecessary DRM to play a single player game and then complaining about low sales is just really pathetic. As for Blizzard, I have no doubt that, no matter, the price tag that are put on their games, their games will sell like hot cake. Of course, is the raising in price tag necessary? Is Activision getting a little too greedy? I will have no doubt that some of you do think that Blizzard games are worth every penny of that $60, and that you can recoup the money lost by restricting yourself from $10 worth of beer, but remember, by thinking like this, you are advocating the new trend. http://www.grandtheftpc.com/2010/04/why-are-pc-gamers-paying-60-now.html

Because there is this little thing called inflation which it seems is totally unknown to most of the people on this forum......

Are theaters ticket the same price than 10 years ago ? Is gas the same price as 10 years ago ?

Heck is a can of soda the same price ?

Nope......

Ail said: Lastgengamer said:                        "$100 buck? Damn, I guess I'm just getting the standard edition which is $5...WTF $60 bucks?? It all started when Activision had the audacity to start charging $60 for the PC version of Modern Warfare 2. Activision realized that after the success of Modern Warfare, they can pretty much charge any amount they please for the sequel and PC gamers would still flock to buy it. Of Course, if you’re into the multiplayer aspect of Modern Warfare 2, then the game comes packed with hundreds of hours of game play, so it’s safe to assume that Activision, somehow, got away with it, but when Assassin’s Creed 2, a single player game with absolutely no multiplayer and a horrible DRM that serves to punish legit buyers, is selling for $60 and the upcoming standard editions of Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are also selling for $60 too, things have gotten too far ,and we can see that a new trend is emerging. Of course, you may come and point out the fact that console games cost $60 too. Why should PC gamers have to pay $50 when console gamers have to pay $60? Well, On top of the $50 that publishers set for their games to be sold on the console, they will also need to pay about, or more than, $10 per copy licensing fee to Microsoft and Sony respectively in order for them to sell the games on their console in the first place, which you guessed it, you pay for, but, unlike console gaming, there are no licensing fees for PC games. In fact, Microsoft, themselves, offers publishers to put the “Games for Windows Live” in their games free of charge. After this, we can only deduce that publishers who price their games $60 on the PC earn more money per game sold on the PC than do they earn per game sold on the console. When someone asks on a forum, what is the reason behind all this pirating? A number of answers can be heard, such as “because I can” or “because games are too expensive”. The fact that games are becoming more expensive should in some ways exacerbate the whole pirating issue publishers are ranting about, and when publishers like Ubisoft deter customers by raising the price tag and by forcing a completely unnecessary DRM to play a single player game and then complaining about low sales is just really pathetic. As for Blizzard, I have no doubt that, no matter, the price tag that are put on their games, their games will sell like hot cake. Of course, is the raising in price tag necessary? Is Activision getting a little too greedy? I will have no doubt that some of you do think that Blizzard games are worth every penny of that $60, and that you can recoup the money lost by restricting yourself from $10 worth of beer, but remember, by thinking like this, you are advocating the new trend. http://www.grandtheftpc.com/2010/04/why-are-pc-gamers-paying-60-now.html   Because there is this little thing called inflation which it seems is totally unknown to most of the people on this forum...... Are theaters ticket the same price than 10 years ago ? Is gas the same price as 10 years ago ? Heck is a can of soda the same price ? Nope......

Naturally. But by the same logic, should console games be priced at $70 now to cover the licensing fee? It still costs more to publish on console.

For all that people complain about the cost of new games, with the exception of the jump from the 6th to 7th gen (PS3 and 360), most games (non-budget titles) have pretty much retailed for $50 for as long as I can remember.

I can only interpret market tests to increase the price of PC games as attempts to regain lowered revenue in response to dropping sales rates, whether that's due to piracy or more gamers buying console, I won't venture to guess.