You seem to give a lot of damn for someone who says he doesn't give a damn. See bold vs italic, you didn't even make it out of the paragraph without contradicting yourself.

The other equation here is that it's not just about the money, it's about the time.   People only have so much time.  So the more time they spend playing free/cheap disposable games they less time they have to spend playing $60 AAA games. The less time you have to play $60 games, the fewer you buy.

Then comes the value equation.  Personally, I already have a 10/10 rule when it comes to paying full price for a game.  That is I need to have reasonable grounds to believe I'll play it at least 10 times and for at least 10 hours before I'll shell out $50-60 for it.    Because at 10hrs it's now giving the same value as going to see a movie - $6/hr.

So for myself, it doesn't matter how good a game like God of War is, it's 6-8 hrs that's not likely to be replayed and therefore not a full-priced purchase.   I'd get it used/discounted or rent it (probably rent it).  Although I admit there's a great many who see value in this particular game at full price still.   A new IP in the same situation would not fair so favorably.

But by that same token, I'd drop $100 or more for SSBB, CoD, GH or such because they get played for 50-100 hrs, so it's still terrific value.

Now, if games like Angry Birds are hitting the 10/10 equation at .99 then what does that do to the value equation?  Worse, what if I buy a $60 game but then end up spending more time playing an addictive free app?   Even if we say I get a mere 20 minutes of fun from a .99 game, that drops the value proposition of games in general down to $3/hr, meaning I (the consumer) now need to see 20hrs of enjoyment out of a $60 game to justify it.  

These factors drive people to increasing only shell out for those games they are confident they'll get full value out of - Namely games where they have before - Call of Duty, NSMB, GH before it was over milked, etc.   Creating what we already are seeing - an increasingly hits based market and increasingly dependant on known IPs.

People become increasingly relunctant to gamble with $60 for a game they might like, when for $20 they can buy 2-20 games that will most likely keep them entertained longer overall.

the only way i would give a damn is if i owned their shares....but i dont so why would it matter to me?

anyways this is going off topic.....my initial point was that big developers should not fear shovelware and i stick by that point. if they do fear the crap thats available on smartphones then shame on them.

Stick your head in the sand strategy huh? Any business should be worried about a substitute good to their service, especially one that has the chance to be cheaper to make, cheaper to sell, and easier to distribut and advertise. It has every chance to take their customers away. They may be shallow 99 cent games now, but that does n ot mean they will stay that way. They can basically only go up in quality.

It seems to me that there is little evidence that the gamers that buy $60 games are no longer buying them preferring cheap apps instead ,games like the ones mentioned here GOW 3 etc are selling as well if not better than there predecessors. if any market is susceptible to being squeezed it is ninty and sony's portable consoles.

PS i would love to know how long the sixty dollar rrp for most games has been around .

well you keep dreaming of the day when theres 99 cent games that people would pick instead of games like uncharted, gears of war and grand theft auto.

all i know is that even 100 99 cent games would not be better than a single ps3 game i own.