Yahtzee Croshaw said:
And you don't get this in films: a rental of a brand new blockbuster movie versus the rental of an old classic will be a difference of what, two or three bucks?
You actually get this a lot in the film industry. The analogy only works when you compare things from the same genre, and then back in the day when Blockbuster existed there wan't even a difference between a rental of one disk that's 2 hours or one that's 3 hours. There is a difference if you were renting collectors editions because they had multiple disks to rent, but renters avoided multidisk renting for that reason.
For 2 screens at once for Netflix it costs 7.99 and that gets me hundreds of hours.
However they don't have all that I want.
Crunchyroll costs 6.95 a month and I get much less in terms of hours, but much more of what I want.
However, that's still not enough.
Hulu costs 7.99 and I only have it for The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Agents of SHIELD, and Arrow
Clearly as the amount of content hours goes down I'm actually paying much more per hour. Quality and Type of content goes a long way. Back in the day, prior to the Internet, Porn was fairly expensive for even a few hours, and shows why Genre of film alters the price quite radically.
I'm not arguing that we should be paying 60 bucks for multiplayer only, or 40 bucks for a demo. They do need to be very truthful in their marketing, however. People who bought Titanfall that expected more campaign content then there actually was are right to be mad. I also have the right to make fun of them because the developer was bragging about how much money they were saving by not wasting time on expensive single player content, and I could tell what the result would be based on that. I wouldn't pay 60 bucks for half a game, or the third of the game Titanfall is. However, I can see that most of the audience probably wasn't paying attention to dev interviews, and thus the marketing ended up being a bit deceptive.
The 40 bucks for MGS:V should be compared to games that do the same thing to be objectively compared. When you try to compare to things objectively that are actually for different things you end up with a subjective analysis. It's like trying to objectively measure the worth of my razor to the worth of an orange. Both have value, but their values are too different to be directly compared.
MGS:V sounds open worldy to me based on the reviews and complaints. So how does it compare to Skyrim, and Grand Theft Auto V? It sounds like it wouldn't even come close to the open world nature of those two games, but at least that would be a more of an Apple to Apples comparison instead of an Apples to Oranges comparison.