The gaming industry is so large and diverse now their are multiple revenue streams for publishers and developers.

You still have the AAA titles and their dlc season passes which are dropped content to make you pay more, free to play titles with their stores which range from LOL/DOTA2 to games like farmville which all make large amounts of money.

You have a growing indie scene and alot of crowd funded games- Star Citizen has over $20 million dollars for development for example.

Gamers have alot more choice on multple platforms so theirs not always a need to go out and buy the next big game- wait for the reviews to see if its worth buying as alot of games are not always finished.

Yeah I agree with your last paragraph,problem is I'm addicted to buying games,especially when they end up been must have quality products which by all accounts isn't to often.

I have high hopes for Watchdogs and Wofenstein in May so I hope they play as good as they look.

Seen many times over the years from most the gaming sites praising games in previews and developer interviews and walkthroughs only to see the finished product slaughtered at the review stage.

And I won't be surprised if the likes of Edge Magazine or so called website Polygon if they mark one or even both with scores below what the majority give.

Gamers have alot more choice on multple platforms

So if I buy all the other platforms, I will only need to buy 100 odd games at 20 quid before I start to make a saving on my 40 quid PS4 titles?

It's very simple. Most AAA tiles are worth the money. If you are prepared to wait and save a few quid, good on you, but that doesn't make the title poor value in the first place. Yes I could save money by dropping the PS4 for a PC, but then there's all the hidden costs of PC gaming.

Tank tops, Clarke's real leather uppers...

In reply to a post by MrTAToad2:

Does it have any re-playability though ?

If a game looks and plays good and has you gripped to play a little bit more and is hard to switch of then regardless of price and the fact it has no multiplayer is fine by me.

Most games have multiplayer tacked on and usually end up been utter garbage anyway,take the fantastic Far Cry 3 And the Tomb raider games to name just 2 as prime examples of multiplayer people forget 10 minutes after playing it.

The problem is, after completing a single-player game within 72 hours, will it also suffer the same fate as multi-players modes, and you just forget about it...

I dont feel that £40 is worth paying for a game that'll be completed within such a short timeframe, especially if there is nothing new when you restart.

Problem is Toady there are no games that take 72 hours to complete and if they did i would call that extreme value for money even without multiplayer.

Most games have a 8 hour campaign if your lucky and Infamous i finished in around 12 but what a ride that game was.

nearly every game I play has a campaign of 72+ hours.

the only genre that I know off that has very short campaigns is FPS which isnt surprising as FPS gamers seem to only care about multiplayer so single player is something bolted on.

A few I have played with shorter campaigns feel empty and incomplete.

Im talking normal AAA games mate not your obscure Mrpg games that you love with a passion.

Think Tomb Raider,Far Cry 3, and most normal games that get released and you get the picture.

There is AAA games that are not FPS.

fable games, final fantasy games, dragon age games, dark souls games, plus I would consider at least half of my rpg's to be AAA games.

Ok there are some 40 to 70 hours gameplay games but the majority of single player games i have owned haven't lasted much beyond 12 hours.

Are there games that are not FPS Blimey where have i been