>>724880193
Completely reasonable given the enormous development costs of these games. Gamers still haven't adapted to the fact that gaming isn't a growing market anymore, there's no longer an expanding market share to cover rising development costs. So either production values need to come down or prices need to go up. Gamers claim to advocate for the former in theory but in practice almost everything between indie and AAAA flops. Gamers still expect new games to consistently boast bigger and better spectacle, they're just mad that these improvements no longer pay for themselves in new sales.

>I shouldn't have to pay that much
Then fucking don't, retard. There are more options than ever for gaming on the cheap. Emulators, indies, and competitive f2p got me through college. This isn't about gaming entertainment, this is about your FOMO-addled brain being unable to cope with missing a single major new release.

>>724652313
UI almost never sells the game which means resources are allocated away from it. And with the proliferation of web interfaces/standardization, there's an easy "good enough" interface to default to if you just want to ship something functional.

>>714232948
>Netflix
>investor pyramid scheme
Don't be retarded anon. Let's say you set up a lemonade stand and within an hour of opening, you sell out all your inventory. Only a financial idiot would extract a large profit from their revenues and come back the next day with the same limited inventory. Any smart entrepreneur would realize the obvious expansion opportunity and pour every cent back into business and probably take out a loan to grow even quicker. For streaming companies specifically, it would be absolutely retarded of them to cheap out and focus on profits before negotiating sports broadcasting contracts.