Game prices for the past 30 years haven’t kept pace with inflation.
I recognise the argument that publishers are shifting larger volumes of units now, which has been a factor that has allowed the industry to keep price increases below inflation for the last 30 years.
Wages not being even close to keeping up with inflation (especially housing inflation) is the real issue here, not the $70/$80 video game.
You should be angry at your reduced purchasing power in all of society, not just with the price of Nintendo games.
(Secondary less unpopular opinion, the best games out these days are multiplatform and released at least 5 years ago, buy them for << $80 and wait for sale the new releases, when they too are 5 years old)
Counter example: if you pick an Elder Scrolls game you can easily get 100 hours for a single playthrough. Then start again with a different class / race / playstyle for dozens of combinations. Not satisfied? They have one of the largest modding communities, for hundreds of hours of more gameplay.
You don’t need online / multiplayer to have an immense amount of replayability.
Also, the argument was about what is considered a good hours/price ratio. If you are telling me that your standards are dozens of hours / $, then yo do have a bit of unrealistic expectations.
That is an excellent point and games that support this and have an active community gain a lot of value for it.
Not really. I probably got hundreds of hours per $ from StarCraft II and a decent two-digit number per $ from StarCraft: Broodwar and Age of Empires II. But yeah, maybe unrealistic for the average person.