OP is skipping more well thought out comments to engage with the ones they think they can one up to get their point across. I think you're right, they're not interested in a discussion. Just wanted to flex they have an expensive bike and like Celine Dion in 2025
Milk can also be flexible at $60.
Let me try and put this in terms you can understand.
That analogy was just about perfect. High intensity moments in spectator sport relates to high intensity moments in games surprisingly well.
If I was your 5th grade teacher, I would take out my red pen and write "This is a great intro statement! Now support it in the next paragraph!"
The Avengers movies were beloved (not by me) in large part because people loved the expensive CGI. Ticket prices for most of those movies were $20 bucks per person. A poor value imo.
You didn't need to click on this thread, but you did. You don't need to answer the question posed in the OP...but you didn't.
It can't.
Men_in_Boxes
I'm beginning to understand your infamy here
I'm the Gibson Les Paul appreciator for games on GAF.
You're expecting gaming to do better?
it's kind or rare, Your mind is aligned with me : ))I don't understand the pushback against higher prices in games.
I used to value mountain bikes as a kid so instead of buying a $100 dollar Huffy, I saved my money and bought a $500 dollar Trek. I loved that Trek.
The Cybertruck, Enzo, and Mercedez Benz Gullwing couldn't exist without variable pricing. The automobile industry is healthier and more innovative because companies aren't locked into selling $30k dollar economy vehicles. Car enthusiasts would never support a price ceiling mandate on their favorite industry.
Led Zeppelin, Celine Dion, and Muddy Waters wouldn't exist without instruments advancing past two sticks and a couple of rocks. Expensive, enthusiast equipment was required for these artists to make the best music on earth.
There isn't an enthusiast industry out there that would benefit from an industry standard price cap, and yet gamers (arguably the worst people on earth) constantly meltdown at the thought of giving creatives more freedom to charge for their craft.
Were they significantly more expensive than for other movies at the time? (I have no idea). If they were I would assume it was because demand outstripped the availability of seats, which is not a limitation which exists with games.
Honestly, very few, if any, have actually engaged with the premise posed in the OP.
Guy lists 3 dead or dying industries to explain why luxury pricing hurts healthy industries.
There's been numerous reports of $70 games not being sustainable. Many, myself included have already largely bowed out at that price point. It'll only get worse the higher it goes.
I think the way you're framing it is a bit misleading.
kat_on_the_roof
nailed it. 
Guy claiming "flexible pricing is good in every industry except videogames" shifts goalposts and would prefer to engage on his cherry-picked industries only.
Yes. OP does this a lot. They just can't understand why people don't want constant live service trash. They probably bought Concord at launch.You're comparing software to bikes and cars. It's completely different.
I don't understand why you can't see this? Is this a troll post?
I'd also add in gaming you have high end and low end hardware. 5090 vs Series S console for example.
I fundamentally disagree with this.
You're not the least bit interested in explaining why a low standardized pricing structure would benefit any industry listed in the OP?
Short one and done games = GaaS right?
![L*][*N*K](/data/avatars/m/842/842515.jpg?1744192062){kind=avatar}
I totally get you point, if the next Mario Kart game was $50 but they told you right out of the gate that 8 people worked on this for a year and all they did is manage a bunch of AI modules as they did the whole development for the game and it looked like a soulless robotic game?? Do you think that price cut would be worth it?
Yes, but they do not go into each unit of a game like they go into each unit of a guitar.
What better meterials are being used to create games over other games?
I can assure you the technology used to create Intergalactic within Naughty Dog is significantly more expensive than the technology used to create Cuffbust.
That's fine, Marathon is going to be trash anyway. Bungie can price it however they want, it isn't going to polish the turd they're making to dance on the corpse of the original trilogy.
I bought a Switch 1 day one for myself and played through BOTW. After that, this thing more or less collected dust for all of its lifecycle. The games are just not for me and yes, most of them feel like 30 but never go under 40 even during sales. I am fascinated how literally modelling a pink ball with two eyes and two red blocks for shoes that just stupidly walks around environments that look like mobile game trash tier cash grabs on the Google play store sells for 60 or higher in the millions.
They shouldn't, the Kirby game should be cheaper but Nintendo overcharge for their games because they know they can get away with it.
I actually think you might get an example of this when GTA VI releases OP. I expect they are going to charge even more than the price point for Mario Kart World at launch.
and yet the end product of a NG game might be rated lower than some indie game.
Here, let me help you:
You haven't addressed how the enthusiast industries listed in the OP would benefit from an low standardized pricing structure.
Here, let me help you:
Veblen good - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Hint: cars you describe are Veblen goods, same way luxury watches are. Video games are not. But hey - companies are perfectly fine to experiment and try to sell a videogame for $150, let's see how that one will go.
