I said salaries remained stagnant... so 30% increase vs 65% price increase = 35% less buying power. That was my point. We don't have the buying power we did 20 years ago. The recession is a small blip, and hasn't dropped wages 35%. No matter HOW you look at it, our income has gone down, vs what things cost. Games are very much luxury good. People Will A) not buy consoles and keep with the old hardware, and game mfg will have to deal with that. B) buy new consoles and buy used games (which console makers and game studios are trying to stop, or C) people will pirate. That is pretty much the long and short of it.

If game companies go down this route, I think it will ultimately hurt them more, than help them. They need to look at the long term health of the industry instead of short-term profit increases.

You are talking about PREMIER titles. There are a handful of those launched a year. I am talking about the 20 titles coming out this month, during the spring doldrums. There will always be those VERY top-shelf franchises. But, you are starting to really see some push-back on these titles that are released yearly, with very minimal updates. Studios are looking to maximize profits. Core gamers are caught on the fringes of main stream gaming, and few games cater to them. The main-stream gamers are good for big purchases on these big titles, but the smaller titles suffer. We won't see another Steel Battalion type game that requires a specialized controller, even though it totally sold out (not enough profit margin). We don't see nearly as many innovative games, outside of the indie market...

One of the MAJOR problems, though, is that inflation has gone up, while general salaries have remained stagnant. So, people don't make a LOT more than they did 10-20 years ago, but things cost more. It's getting to the point right now, that charging $60 for game is going to slow sales for many, MANY titles. I think the REAL gaming success story, over all, is Steam. They are very aggressive on pricing, and they just send you games, when you want them, day or night.

Console games used to be $50. They bumped them to $60, and the secondary market took off, after that. They took the market past what it could handle. I do believe that this will hurt consoles more than anything. Most "kids" I know, buy used. That is a fairly large demographic to cut out.

Lets start this out with a question. Has our education system gotten 3.5 times better since the 1960s? No, while you ponder that, have a look at this:

Here are the links I used to put this together:
#1) Near the bottom, this page ranks several nations on Reading/Math/Scientific literacy. I just took the 3 scores, added them up, and took the average to get my ranking. (http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm)

#2) How much do nations spend per student? Not all the nations listed in the first part are listed. There are a few notable exceptions, unfortunately. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student)

Putting this together, I came up with this list of countries, ranked on their Education:

1. Finland - ?
2. Korea - ?
3. Japan - $5,890.00
4. New Zealand - ?
5. Canada - ?
6. Australia - $5,830.00
7. Ireland - $3,934.00
8 United Kingdom - $5,230.00
9. Austria - $8,163.00
10. Sweden - $5,648.00
11. France - $6,605.00
12. Belgium - ?
13. United States - $7,764.00
14. Iceland - ?
15. Switzerland - $9,348.00
16. Norway - $7,343.00
17. Czech Republic - $3,182.00
18. Denmark - $7,200.00
19. Spain - $4,274.00
20. Italy - $6,458.00

It doesn't LOOK like spending lots of money is the key... once again, spending it wisely, seems to be the key for the best education.

So, back to my original question, has our education gotten better, or worse, since the 1960s? Have a look at this URL, that adjusts how much we spend per student, since the 60s. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

Does that make you think that we need to look at paying more for education helps? I am ALL for cutting admin costs, quit cutting teacher's salary, cut superintendent and district level offices. Usually, they are overly-filled with bureaucrats, and not in it for the kids. I DO think that teacher unions are a problem as well. Ultimately, it is the parents, and what WE allow. Who WE vote in...

Here's the thing. Your child does not generally EXCEL in school, without heavy involvement at home. I DO fill in the gaps, but I am divorced, and finding out things from Mom is inconsistent.

I would like to see more communication from the teacher. On the flip side, because my daughter is in a classroom with kids that don't have the advantages she does, she is "dragged" (see, I did read other posts) down to the other students level.

I will admit, the classroom has CRAPPY computers. I have volunteered to come in and work on them if needed, since IT is what I do for a living.

I understand that. I see it at my daughter's school, unfortunately. What really sucks, though, is that my daughter's education is drug down because of that. Equality is all fine and dandy, until you realize that your own child doesn't get what she needs, because she excels... and I don't have the money to move her to private. :-(

But, should that change airtime costs? My airtime costs, before data, are pretty damn high, still!