There are three grammatical errors, you should not use a capital letter for them as they are not proper nouns.

"There" is not a proper noun either, so you shouldn't be using a capital letter for it.

(Is something wrong?)

While I understand the sentiment, I don't agree. I've had more fun (and replayability) from a $5 game than the $30 game I bought at the same time.

Organ Trail is awesome.

Another thread to use as an excuse throw this video in :)

The bullet just would accelerate to a minuscule fraction closer to the actual speed of light.

A bullet's speed isn't absolute to be added to the craft's speed. You have to think in terms of energy. It would take such a massive amount of energy to travel at close to the speed of light that the energy produced by a gun would be infinitesimally small by comparison.

Of course, action and reaction and all that, if it's an isolated system inside the ship, the same energy would be applied to the gun in the opposite direction and the ship as a whole wouldn't change velocity. If the system isn't isolated and the gun itself is attached to the ship, then the energy might be applied to the ship to decrease its velocity.

I don't think quality determines price so much as it justifies it.
As Fantasy pointed out, there's been plenty of fantastic games which are at low prices. They didn't magically get a price increase just because they're better.
All that better quality does is determine how willing people are to tolerate a big price tag.

It's not easy trying to tutor him, please don't interrupt Deatrice.

Hiya Fantasia.

On a slight tangent, I've always found it hilarious how some game sites - bundlers such as Bundle Stars and Indie Gala in particular - use the terms "worth" and "cost" interchangeably.

Maybe it's a deliberate marketing tactic, but every time I see a bundle that the site claims is "worth" €120-150 for just a couple of euros, I feel the compelling need to write to them to educate them on the principles of worth vs. cost. The games might "cost" €150 separately, but in most cases there's no way that those games are "worth" that.

In fact, I think the PC gaming market has mutated to a point where games are deliberately overpriced to generate an exaggerated sense of worth when they inevitably do later end up on sale or bundled.

Fair prices for works of art are an illusion. It's impossible to determine the real value.

That said, a realistic relationship between work hours and funding invested and the percentage of what the original dev is actually getting should be there.
Some Kickstarter funded incomplete games with few people involved and still high price years later don't entice me buying them. The same goes for way overprized old stuff where the rights went to a huge company (usually EA or Zenimax) via hostile takeover and of which the devs are getting nada.

Personally, I want to support artists and not radical capitalist CEOs.

At least we haven't reached a point were Big Budget games come out priced at $120 and then go on sale for $60 to convince us retailing at $60 is a great deal.

Purely mathematically, the value of a work of art is the cost of producing that art (including cost of work) divided by the number of copies of that work of art. So if a $60 game costs $60 million to make and distribute, and if 1 million people buy it, it's a fair price. Each copy produced reduces the nominal value of each of the other individual copies. Revenue generated beyond that is a form of economic "goodwill", as the value then fluctuates depending on supply and demand.

Of course, the "cost" of making a game can be accurately gauged when made by registered companies, because every creator - including the managing director/CEO/general head honcho - gets a predetermined salary or wage that is accounted for. It's less clear with games made by bedroom coders who develop in their free time, don't pay themselves a wage from their allotted budgets.

Again, purely mathematically, because we cannot stipulate how much the creator's time, creative effort and knowledge are worth here, it could be argued that the value of the developer's efforts is essentially an unknown that we calculate after the fact. So if a bedroom-coded game generates $10,000 in revenue after deducting stuff like development software licences and electricity, what's left is essentially the coder's salary. If we know how many man-hours have been put in, we have a general understanding of the worth of the developer's efforts.

It all sounds cold, mechanical and heartless, but it ultimately provides us with a baseline from which we can estimate what a game really is worth. Ultimately, if you cannot quantify cost as an absolute, you can only quantify it on the basis of demand and what people are willing to pay to satisfy that demand.

Usually old games always get cheaper with time because newer games get out and compete with the old ones. But if old games are of high quality, the price drops much, much slower. I think this is absolutely right. And frankly, there are some garbage games out there where you only waste your time. They shouldn't be played even if people would get paid for doing it.

In general, demand determines price. If you produce something that many people want to have, you'll get rich beyond dreams. If you cannot make a living producing things that nobody wants you won't continue making them. So we end up in a world where quality and price roughly correlate. More expensive is better (but also more expensive).

Example: I think the I-Phones are really good, but a bit overpriced. I wouldn't buy one, also because I can live with less good but quite a lot cheaper hardware from other vendors. Apple by overpricing their products may reduce the number of customers somewhat but may still maximizing their profit. After all that's what it's all about. However, they may also miscalculate and end up doing the wrong thing. Nobody knows.