Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9598951" data-attributes="member: 18">No, I'm accounting for that. I'm not randomly assigning numbers, dude. I'm talking about from the actual sales.I don't think so.I think the opposite would actually be true - we'd be paying the same for games, but games would have significantly production teams and budgets. And I think that would be a lot healthier than the insanely inflated production teams and demented budgets we have today.Because you seem to be unaware of how people respond to prices. $50 and $70 are relatively similar, but $100 is something else, and $200 is something else to that. 90% of people just never make casual purchases over about $100. Even fewer would spend $200.So those prices just wouldn't work if you wanted to sell millions of copies.Nope. That's an irrational belief. We'd see smaller budgets on games, which, ironically would mean we'd likely see more varied games, and more risky games.No, it isn't. Why say something obviously wrong and silly like that?We're literally in an videogame RPG golden age, and we've got insanely good games everywhere, and you're claiming there's a "relative lack of good titles". Absolutely impossible to justify. You cannot argue this or provide any evidence to support it. I could destroy this ridiculous idea on indie titles alone - I wouldn't even need to use AAA titles!</blockquote>