I disagree a little there. I've still generally found the PSN store, as one example, to be the most expensive place to get games digitally. PC gaming seems to like to compete with itself with sales and so on. Consoles are more of a captive monopoly.
Replies
It was a bit of a "General statement" and wasn't always true. I was more stating specifically why didn't games go down from $60 to $50 during the 2010s. The reason being that games should've been $70 around 2015-2018 if following existing trends.
aug 31, 2025, 6:45 pm • 2 0 • view
Well that and "If they'll pay $60 physical, why would we charge less for digital? We get more money that way"
aug 31, 2025, 6:54 pm • 1 0 • view
So counter point: Prices went down in the 90s because of the move to CDs. You could argue "well the cheaper cost of CDs vs cartridges allowed for prices to go down" But the using your same argument, the business reason would just be "We can undercut and overtake our competitor and make a monopoly"
aug 31, 2025, 8:06 pm • 1 0 • view
At the end of the day, there will always be ulterior motives, but we can also look at what the actions were. Prices _were_ stable through the 2010s. They didn't go down with digital, but they also didn't go up with them either when they should've. It ultimately balances out, right?
aug 31, 2025, 8:06 pm • 0 0 • view
I agree with your perspective though. The greed is fucking awful. Just, the goal of pointing out the data shouldn't disregard everything else, it's should help us make a stronger argument for what we're seeing. And we have to keep that in mind. The stat of inflation SHOULDN'T stop us.
aug 31, 2025, 8:06 pm • 1 0 • view
To me, we can use these arguments to better our cases and basically force them into a corner on it all. That's all. There's a way to tactically force this but we have to be going from the same angles. Even using the bad faith arguments to our advantage.
aug 31, 2025, 8:06 pm • 1 0 • view