Come on, you know what I mean. Yes, you could buy a used car perhaps for $2000, but I'm talking about the cost of new cars. Either way, the point was about what most cars cost, and I was saying you shouldn't expect the market to price something to accommodate the people who don't really need or use that product much.

I have no idea what your tangent onto the issue of things being released into the public domain has to do with a discussion of the cost of new games though. And going into the public domain is not a requirement for the price of something to change over time. Most games go down in price very rapidly, especially now. Most games that are a year old are reduced in half or more.... a couple years old and they're usually slashed to a third of their old price or less.

I'm honestly not sure what point you're making about the extension of copyright and the price of videogames, because the cost of videogames drops much faster than would be relevant in terms of a copyright expiring or going into the public domain.

But isn't that kind of like saying "No car is worth more than $2000 to me, because I hardly ever drive"? It doesn't seem like the general value of something (as opposed to the individual value you would place on it) should be dictated by what the smaller minority of people who wouldn't use it regularly would be willing to pay for it.

Not saying you're wrong - I actually agree with you in general. As I've found myself playing less games, I've really cut down on paying $50 or $60 for a game when I know I won't play it for more than a few hours. I'll still buy a game if I know I'll get a lot of value out of it.

But my main point is, I don't think they need to reprice games based on people like you and I who don't play much and therefore don't find full price to be worth paying. Going back to my car analogy, I wouldn't expect them to start selling cars for $2000 to satisfy the small contingent of people who rarely if ever drive and therefore wouldn't pay more than that for a car.