Then it is there fault for not making a game worth $60 and/or allowing programs like steam to purchase rights to allow them to sell it that cheap. (Part of Competition)
If the game to me sounds like it is worth it, Ill spend $60. I have no problem with that.
It's not that simple, as 'worth' $60.
If I can broaden this to the software industry, market phases are recognized.
There are periods when a type of software is newer and more can be charged for it, with less competition. The phase they worry about is the commodity phase.
For example, when software compression was introduced - almost by one person, Phil Katz - he could charge a premium for his program (it didn't hurt disk cost a fortune).
But eventually, compression software became 'commoditized', and the profits wee sucked out of that market. Who has paid $40 for a compression program lately?
The same issue can affect other industries, like movies and tv, and games.
Consider a change in the tv market - it used to be three networks and PBS, where you had to watch when it aired. A new show wasn't competing against hundreds of shows that had aired before. But with the introduction of DVD's and rentals and other things making every movie and tv show from decades available, new shows have a lot more competition - not to mention hundreds of channels. That's a bit of a different issue, though.
With games, having a standard price of $60 for a top new game that lasts for a year is one pricing situation, and having everything on sale cheap fast is a different one.
It teaches people not to buy new games at $60, and slashes the average price paid. Games are forced to sell for less because other games do.
That's not about 'worth $60'. It's simply the market forces other than demand.
If that compression software had instantly had a lot of competition and the price was driven down from $40 to $1, it wouldn't be because it wasn't 'worth $40'.
You're blaming the victim when you point at the software maker and say the program isn't very good to get a higher price.
I paid $2300 for a 21" CRT when that was the going rate. Is my $300 27" LCD 'worth' that much less? No, the market changed.
And CRT's - while some people still prefer them - got priced out of existence. You can't get any good 21" CRT now except used.
And similarly the $60 game model is getting priced out of the market, while F2P's and DLC and other variations are shrinking it.
There's a lot of technology changes catching up. Games used to mean a physical box in a store, maybe a hundreds of page manual and cloth map. Now they don't.
One thing keeping the market going is the improvement in games, so that new games seem better than older games, for the most part.
When that stops, it'll hurt the market for new games further.
You say 'if the game is worth $60 you'll pay it'. But what does that mean? In part, it means not only 'wrth it', but worth it more than many other games on sale for $5.
And that has nothing to do with the game.
There are many 'legitimate' improvements that drive prices down. What we'd all pay for an SSD two years ago is different than we'll pay for better ones today. That's 'competition'.
But that's not the same thing as solely pricing changes driven by massive digital distribution and discounting pressures created with a seller like Steam.
'You don't have to put your game on sale, but other games did and you won't sell yours if you don't because of that'.
To repeat, there are tadeoffs. Lower prices increase units sold. But that doesn't make it optimal for sellers and it doesn't prevent a threat to the budgets for new games.
Think budgets don't matter? Compare the quality of HBO shows to others - much less to the new genre of 'reality tv'. Hey, another phony car towing drama!
The Sporanos, Rome, Boardwalk Empire, The Newsroom, True Blood - these do not exist in a lower budget industry, on commercial 'free' television.
Luckily, it's harder to commoditize a product like HBO's - though the reality shows are commoditized, and it shows.