-
but £60 for a decent game doesn't seem too outrageous to me
I actually dont have an issue with it either. If you compare it to the length of a movie, some games can go into the 100hours, its more than worth it. Sometimes its a hit or miss, i bought the full price for CoD for the zombie bit, turns out i hated it.
But, its more the fact that i am unemployed at the moment and trying to limit my outgoings as much as possible rather than objecting to paying £60 on principle.
ChainBreaker-
Yeah that's fair enough! Hope the employment stuff gets sorted out soon man!
On a tangential note, console stores not offering a Steam-like "No questions asked refund if it's less than a 2 week old purchase with less than 2 hours play time". I remember picking up Mario Odyssey for full price didn't really get on with it. Thankfully it got a bit more fun to play once the main game was finished. But it's damn frustrating not being able to get a demo of the vast majority of games out there.
Also miss picking up bargain pre-owned games (though don't miss popping them in and discovering they were scratched to hell...)
mmccarthy
I'm aware it's likely not the popular opinion here, but £60 for a decent game doesn't seem too outrageous to me (assuming no insidious in-game purchases). Given that I was buying PS1 games for £40 a pop in the 90s (though in those days that gameplay could be heavily subsidised by playing through all those lovely demo discs you'd get with magazines!), £60 doesn't seem like too big a leap over 20-25 years and a fair bump in quality. Personally I think this apparent £40 cap is a significant contributor to the aforementioned insidious in-game/DLC purchases. I just want to buy the game, all of it, once.
Granted that sort of thing is offset by practices such as EA releasing a 2018 version of FIFA with nothing but a roster update every year since (on Switch) and charging full price for it. Madness.