didn't read the article. I buy almost every game used or on sale at steam because i think prices are too high

I aim to get at least one hour of playtime for each £1 ($1.58) I spent purchasing the game. Most games I have bought recently have met that target, I can only recall Super Mario 3D Land in the last year falling short (21 hours compared to £28). On the other hand, games like Xenoblade Chronicles lasted me 102 hours for £38, or Tales of the Abyss for £30, lasting me 45 hours.

Most games are not worth 60$, comparisons with the past are meaningless imo, we can't contiunue doing the same things we have used to do for the past 20 years.
In the post-crisis scenario the consumer is not willing anymore to spend a lot of money without warranties, I am not willing to do that anymore, I want to be sure I'll get real value from what I buy.
The truth is not every game is worth the same, for me games like Smash Bros or Dark Souls for 60$ are fine I could pay even more for them, because I know I'll get value in return. On the other hand it's absurd a game like Portal 2 (for example) is sold at the same price, it's an excellent game but it's short a it has a little to none replay value. Also when I buy a new game I always take the risk of paying 60$ for a product I may not like in the end.

I agree with the author, using DD, software houses should start to sell games on separeted "packs", imo this could be a benefit for both consumers and developers.
The consumer would be able to try and play the game, to see if he really likes it, without buying all the content, at the same time, the developer could know how much to expand game content without taking huge finacial risks.
We are accostumed to a purchase model where you buy a game, and later you can get an expansion as DLC but if the whole game experience is divided in packs from the beginnging, the developer could potentially expand the game endlessly as long as the players are interested.
On the minus side someone could say that, in the end, buying every "pack", the consumer is going to pay more.
That's true, but it's not about how much you spend it's about how much value you get from what you spend, If I play a game and later I decide to buy more and more of it, it's because I like it, I spend time with it, so in the end I get the right value from what I buy.
The same arument is valid for singleplayer and online modes, if I only play singleplayer I don't see why I also have to pay for the online mode, and viceversa.

Yes they are worth it. If they weren't I would have stopped buying them.

No.

OT:  Some are, some aren't.

Okay, okay

Seven-fifty, I was rounding down and that was wrong of me

I'm not sure where you are getting that number from...

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

According to the BLS... 70 dollars in 96 is about = to ~100 dollars today.

Although, i'd point out that inflation in terms of videogames is largely a poor indicator anyway.

Since unlike, say an apple... technology videogames change in prices quite rapidly and the cost of making such a thing changes rapidly.

I mean, today an Indy NES level game tends to run you about $5... where if you were to listen to a price indicator, it would cost MORE money, and not less then what it was sold for when the NES was released.

Although to your point the CPI does tend to udnerestimate inflation, and we may infact be in the middle of a huge stagflation crisis we don't even know about.  Still, I don't think it's quite that bad.  Even when you factor in the fact that inflation gets worse the more expensive the product is.

Fine, fine.

Two million dollars.

This.

It all depends on how much enjoyment you get out of a game.  As long as the hours played vs cost are equivilant to a movie then it's well worth the price.  SSBBrawl my son and I got literally hours of hours of fun from, I'd gladly drop $100 on that game and be happy.   Games like CoD, Monster Hunter etc provide crazy online hours of enjoyment and even a game like Rune Factory can be endless hours of fun for those that enjoy it.

It's the six-eight hours games that are challenging because they need to be awesome or else it's a rental or bargain bin buy.

However, what I'm finding it that progressive more of my time is occupied with free game apps which leaves less for purchased games, which in the end, means I'm buying fewer and fewer games.

I've always thought this was a pretty cheap form of entertainment. I buy games for $60 but i've also picked up a lot of games for $40, $30, $20 and sometimes even less. It doesn't make much sense to complain about $60 games when you can wait a bit and pick it up for much cheaper. Unless you're a spoiled child who has to have everything as soon as it releases.