Totally don't like and with prices at 60USD I already wait for most games to drop to 10-15 or even less for some games... with prices at 70 I'll only buy very few games at launch. And if Sony put more games on PC at launch I will just drop console gaming.

Worse yet is 2K saying their games like NBA is the ones that deserve 70USD price tag because they are more valuable... the games that drop faster than anything as soon as the roster change so in a year they go from 60 to 10. For me yearly games should be 60 for one copy and then at most 10 bucks to update the yearley roster and other details.

Cause of reasons.

You can't do inflation comparisons when the hardware (carts) made up 50% of the cost.

$/MB has gone through the floor to the point that the average game is free.
Entertainment/MB has gone in the opposite direction.

Just out of interest, which option do people consider the least value/expensive?

A $60 game that's worth $10 after 12 months or a $100 game that's still worth (trade-in) $90, 5 years later?

I couldn't have said it any better!

Inflation for hardware very much makes sense as the parts become more expensive to produce and MS and Sony sell for break even or loss. But SW not so much because the cost of production of the goods haven't really increased, at most the cost to develop increased but also sales have increased and profit as well, so price hike isn't really needed.

Up until XB Live, every (home console) game was the same price if you ignore the trade-in market.

Some games deserve to be x10-x10,000 more expensive than other games. Increasing RRP helps those games get the $$$ they deserve and punishes the games that don't deserve it.

I have to laugh at those who think there's just too many good games at $60 to warrant a price increase though.

Day 1 = time preference.

I never said anything about day 1.

Minecraft was a one-man effort and he made a billion $$$.

Why do game devs have to be so greedy when a free game is enough is to make them a billion dollars each?

I purposely didn't but it's hard to come up with a scenario that excludes time preference in the entertainment industry given that cinema/movie theatres only exists because of it. Some people will pay $50 to watch a film at the cinema but won't play it again until it's free.

If you'd just passed your driving test, and there was car already on the market for 5 years that you really, really wanted but you knew it was gonna drop in price by 80% if you were willing to wait 3 weeks to 12 months, how long would you wait?