Topic title is misleading. The value of the Pound Sterling has dropped dramatically and prices are already on the rise there because it was much cheaper for most Europeans to import the UK version than it was to buy it locally. If he were talking dollars he'd likely say $70-80 based on how prices were held in the past.

Again, in the article I read, which I believe is the one referenced, he was making the point that many AAA titles are, in his opinion, unnecessarily expensive due to inefficent development practices.  He's not talking marketing costs, he's talking coding, etc. costs - i.e. that SDK kits need to get better and better, etc.

I'm not saying he's right or wrong, I'm saying that, despite all the usual reactions from people not reading the article, he isn't saying games should be 70 pounds, but that if development costs weren't better controlled then they would head in that direction - with Activision merrily raising MW2 price and already some other titles seeing increases its hard to argue he's wrong.

If I've misread the article I'm happy for people to point it out - but what I see currently is a lot of predictable rants that are actually taking the coment completely out of context.

I guess between this and the storm resulting from comments from John Carmack being both poorly reported then completely taken out of context its just a bad day or two for such stuff.

Exactly the reason I was pretty bored all last gen, you have your gems here and there, but for the most part it was a pretty looking version of PS1/N64 games.  I loved the PS1/N64 era since everything was new, people tried new ideas instead of getting into a rut of making a lot of the same genre that will sell well enough to make a big profit, last gen it was every game tried to make a "GTA lite" into their games when it was a needless add-on, now it's every game has to be a shooter.

I just wish things would get out of the routine of making the same games over and over hyping them up for sales rise and repeat and then making even more powerful hardware making it more expensive to develop, it's hitting that breaking point you're going to abuse peoples trust a bit too much, the customers will stop buying and then who knows how many companies will put high stakes into games at that time it could send a few companies to their early demise. 

It happened with Atari and the game industry back then, no it won't ever be another complete crash where the game market dies and no one makes games again, but I hope another E.T. doesn't come along, get everyone hyped, they go out and sell out the game and it is just such trash people just refuse to put that cash on the next hyped game without renting/buying.  It's a narrow path these game companies ride along if the market ever strayed away from the usual buying of hyped games in large quantities, it would put some big companies out of business fast.

Sorry for the long rant, but I'm hoping these execs at these game companies know they're playing on a market that is filled with people not drones and people are fickle, if the market's purchasing habits change quickly (economy anyone?) their usual routine could put them under with how much the games costs to develop.

If $50 games are 10 hours now and $60 games are 6 hours, how long will it take you to beat a $100 game? 20 minutes?

I must say that made me chuckle, that's a good one Rubang.

25 minutes of game, 5 minutes of credits, then a splash page offering you pre-order on the next AAA game for $90...

Games costs roughly 100 dollars here, I still don't think it's all that expensive...

Ahoy mates!
Harr!! Harr!!