grigjd3 said:
Barring Australia, games are NOT expensive.
That actually sidesteps the issue at hand - a retail game, printed on a disc, shipped around in boxes made of plastic on trucks made of metal on roads made of asphalt, should
not cost the SAME as a digital game, printed on thin air, shipped around in thin air in nothing made of nothing, on trucks made of ISPs on roads made of electricity.
We in Australia pay $110 for the physical goods? Whatever. You can justify it every which way until you're red in the face. I mean sure, I can import games from the UK for more than half that price with free shipping, but that's a product I can hold in my hand.
But we also pay the
same price for
digital goods, and you can't justify that quite as easily. This doesn't just exist in Australia, obviously; all over the world, usually, a AAA title will launch digitally at the same price as retail. Which makes you wonder - why? Where's the extra money going exactly, if not for the cost associated with shifting real world copies from store to store? If not the cost of printing a disc? Of mass-producing box insets? That's the issue at hand, that's what this inquiry is ACTUALLY asking, and that's what we should be concentrating on, as far as I'm concerned.
...though don't get me started on hours = dollars. I've never believed it to be true as long as you can watch a DVD movie over and over again, you can play a game over and over again, and what have you. You do not pay for an hour count. You pay for the assets that happen to make
up an initial hour count. But that's a personal nitpick there.