I am probably not the standard gamer so all this is personal opinion. I am still playing Skyrim. I don't like FPS games, I don't like multi-player games and I d

I am probably not the standard gamer so all this is personal opinion. I am still playing Skyrim. I don't like FPS games, I don't like multi-player games and I don't like sports games. The $60 soft-cap makes sense. That is normally for the core game- Skyrim had three official add-ons, I think $5 each. Game developers have created bad reputations for themselves- you expect new games to be sold unfinished requiring huge updates right after release and to still be buggy for months afterwards. I tried Assassins Creed but within the first week I had multiple ~10GB updates, never made it further than the first 10 minutes of the game. Micro-transactions and in-game advertising are probably subconsciously factored into a games prices by customers now. I stopped buying EA games because every loading screen or background object had "EA" written on it (golf). $60 used to be the purchase price of a disc you bought and you owned the game, pop it in and it works. $60 is now the price for a download link to "rent" the game until the publisher or host decides to no longer keep it up and running. I hate "cloud" gaming. Friday night at 8pm and you decide to play some videos- forced 12GB update means the game will be ready to play sometime Monday morning, assuming the update didn't mess things up. If your Internet is down, sorry, can't play the games you bought and downloaded. Of course customers aren't going to spend more than $60 for a broken buggy game filled with ads that they don't truly own. Bethesda had moved on from Skyrim but fans have not. (Hopefully TES6 stays similar to the series) 8 years after release people are still playing the game. New mods and full add-ons created by fans are still coming out. The market is there for quality single-player games. I stopped reading when the article started talking about energy.