These sorts of comparisons are pretty meaningless without inflation adjusted numbers. That's why films break box office records year, after year, after year.
Well, games have been around for a far shorter time period than movies, so you're not comparing games from 1920 to games from today (and thus the overall effect of inflation is lower). Also, since the former #1 game (BLOPS 2) came out just a couple of years ago, and GTA V beat it by 60% on launch ($800m to $500m), inflation didn't play a significant role.
That just takes the argument in circles since the former #1 might not have been the inflation adjusted #1. It may be the case since "launches" weren't always such a big deal.
Box prices for video games have been remarkably static. New games were selling for $60 in 1993, just like GTA V is today instead of the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $97.
With DLC and other bells and whistles tacked onto many games these days that would have normally been part of the core game, the base price quickly inflates to be more in line with inflation.
Though it should be pointed out that GTA V has launched without any DLC to speak of. I'm sure they'll do it eventually as they did for GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption, but the DLC for those two games was more akin to an expansion pack.
>"With DLC and other bells and whistles tacked onto many games these days that would have normally been part of the core game, the base price quickly inflates to be more in line with inflation."
1.) Assertions about what "would have been part of the core game" are certainly popular, but not necessarily true or provable and certainly not universally applicable.
2.) Standard new game price held steady at ~$60 through three console generations prior to common place DLC. If inflation had been taking its toll we'd have been looking at $85 games prior to "horse armor".
It's not meaningless unless there is some claim like "the purchasing power of the money earned by this game is greater than that of some other game/movie." I don't see any such claim.
But besides, the movies and games it's being compared to are no older than 4 years, so I don't think it's a huge problem.
Another sucker duped by official numbers. Ask yourself, "What happens when nearly all the central banks in the western world print tons of money?" Then follow that line of reasoning and look at how official inflation figures are constructed. Then ask if there is a descrepancy. Bottom line, go do some homework on inflation.
Which part of the Billion Price Project's methodology do you disagree with? Its measure of inflation agrees with the BLS's pretty closely. http://bpp.mit.edu
Which measure of inflation do you prefer over those two, and where can we examine its methodology?
Isn't that assuming a static level of wealth/production? Wealth/Production output isn't a zero sum game, it's not some pie you keep cutting into smaller slices. It can grow over time and even if you increase the number of slices cut, each slice can retain the same relative mass. It's when these don't match up that you find yourself with an inflationary or deflationary currency.
Yes, you can and do cause inflation by printing more money, but it's not as simple as you assert it to be, and it certainly doesn't warrant the rudeness to the parent.
