I'm sorry, but stats show that is not the case. The "average gamer" is around 23 - 25yrs old, has a high expendable income/salary ratio, and is more involved now than they were when they were younger.

The "average Gamer" consists of those gamers that grew up on very early consoles and PC. They have moved ahead and are now in jobs and the workforce in a very well paid time regarding salaries, compared to even 10 yrs ago.

Games are in fact, cheaper now than they were many years ago, well, more than say 7 yrs ago. Do some research and you'll find games that came out early in the various consoles lives were decidedly dearer then, than they are now. The cost on games has been steady over the last 10 yrs, with minimal increases, which btw, do not even fall inline with the annual CPI (consumer price index) in most countries.

SO saying they are dear is not actually the case when looking at the history gaming per-se'. I also greee with BLACk an dothers on the fact taht some younger generations of gamers are really spoilt for choice and quality now. The average "mean" for a good game has moved from being 5/10 to now having to be 8/10 with no margin for error. If the game doesn't score at least an 8/10, then a huge % of younger gamers, the alst 2 generations up to and including 20 odds, basically do not even consider looking at a game.

Earlier on, games were still brilliant for their time, they cost more, they scored the same way with regards to quality, delivery, gameplay etc, and a game that was good, score well, a game that scored middle of the road was not too bad, and worth a shot, those under were, don't both, unless you're bored.

Certain gamers ask for perfection, when in fact, games can not and never will deliver perfection, no matter what the platform, or the franchise (IP). You need to look at the bigger picture, but we have created a few generations of "Instant Gratification" which does not allow for any leway in game presentation. If the same approach was taken say even 7 - 10 yrs ago, we would not have the developers we do now, and gaming may not even be where it is now.

If you demand more and more of developers by asking that all games be Grade-A level (remembering that a AAA title does NOT mean it's a good title, simple one with a HUGE budgetary expended on it - ie DRIV3R) then more and more development studois will close, there were 3 closures over the last few weeks. And less games will be made.

Stop being over critical, look at the bigger picture and expect some games to not be perfect, and then simply enjoy them for what they are trying to do, entertain, not win academy awards.

What country are you from lol?

Certain consoles/platforms have limitations in game design. So that would limit how a developer builds the game for that platform. They can't make all games the same across all platforms simply for the fact they won't, or more to the point, can't support them.

The driving force behind cheaper games on PC's is piracy. Whereas on consoles it's almost non-existent in comparison. If PC games were the same as console games, less ppl would actually buy them, and more would go the piracy route. So publishers cop a loss in $$ on the goods, but make up for it in turnover.

On consoles, they do not have the worry of such things, and can keep the price inline with what they need to get back in order to recoup their initial investment.

A game on a PC is harder to design in many ways, as a developer has to build the game to suit many adaptations of hardware and specs. Allowing for both lower end PC rigs, right up to the light-speed monsters that push any developers games to the limits.

SO game content can be bigger, bolder, and have more in them than their console counterparts. However, that is changing now, as more developers find ways of sticking more on the standard DVD9 disc and find ways of using the small amount of available memory. No, you can't just whack more memory in them, as that defeats the purpose of it being a console.

Developers just find ways of using less, getting more done and streamlining the data and game. If they had endless amounts of memory and processor speeds, they would simply keep using more and more until they became so bloated, it would take a truck to turn the machines on.

If a game has a small amount spent on it, then it sits in the A catergory, mid range and it's in the AA, top end games are thus AAA titles. But that doesn't make every AAA title a good or great game. It simply means that those games have had buck loads of money thrown at them for marketing and publishing purposes.

Again, you can have a high budget $US10 - $US15 million marketing/promotional game and it be a right sow of a thing, yet a great AA title could well knock your socks off, and blow the said AAA title out of the water in many areas. It's just that the dev and the publisher simply did not have the funds to run the marketing campaigns needed.

Turn10's Forza 2 was published by MSG's, and it spent milions on it, even so far as to set up a real world challenge between drivers from across the world, get real world cars and do them up eactly the same as the game, truck all 10 or so cars across the country and drivers and crew and sponsors etc etc and televise it, market it, promote it. That was just ONE aspect of getting that game out there.

How many great games have a budget like that - not many.

Thing is, games are no higher now than they were 5 - 7 yrs ago and more, The cost for consumers on games has remained static within a small margin over the last decade to 12 years. In fact, games have come down rather than gone up. ask any person that is over the age of 30 and they can tell you that as a fact.

Last gens xbox games as one example were priced as follows. $AU89.95, $99.95 and $109.95. Now they sell respectfully at $AU99.95, $109.95 and $1i9.95, a rise of just $10across the board.

However, the actual mean price is now lower for this-gen games, as stores rarely offer the games at full RRP. They are labled at theprice-point, but sales and pre-order offers allow them to sell them at below thatfigure andthe mean price of the games are $85, less than the generation before it.

No one MAKES you pay the "full" RRP for a game, there is a store near you that can offer you the games you want cheaper, YOU just have to shop for them, many gamers now days are just too lazy and want INSTANT gratification, and thus can't be bothered shopping around.

I've yetto pay full RRP on any new game, even for CE's and LE's . .good shopping can have you get the games for much less, IF you are willing to devote a little time and energy to it.

Many games for the PS1 and similar console were in fact upwards of $US100 . . and that aint hay in anyones language. Whereas the average mean price for a game in the US is $49. Sure they have a Street Price (RRP) of $50 - $60, but most games are sold at the mean price, NOT The full rrp.

QUite true, if we bought simply because a game was released, not because we "really" wanted it, then yes, we'd be broke in no time. I only buy those games that REALLY tickle my fancy now. We have a few generations of gamers that simply buy because it's there, and they can say to their friends that they got the game and owned it. If they only bought the games they really liked and really wanted, they'd have less to worry about, more $$ in their pockets but probably loss some bragging rights at school or elsewhere.

You do NOT have to own every game made, there will come a time soon where the number of games on offer each month simply will not be able to supported by the number of gamers out there in sufficent numbers to warrant publication on such rapid cycles.

Because there will come a time when we simply have way TOO many games on offer, and publishers and developers will need to re-assess how they go about delivering the number of games they currently do.