Dear Future Gamer,

I couldn't help overhearing, in your letters page in FG15, that we still have this age-old argument that software "costs too much".

I'm sorry, but would you mind showing me where this overpriced software is? I can pick up classic games that are less than a year old for budget prices at my local WH Smiths in Lewisham. Why do gamers seem to feel that they absolutely, positively have to have the latest and greatest games right now? Is somebody pointing a gun at their head? Or is it just plain greed?

You can't afford to go and watch the latest flick in the cinema, so you wait a couple of years until it appears on TV or video rental. You can't afford to buy the latest model Subaru, so you buy a used (ie: "budget") model. You can't be bothered to buy that great novel in its original hardback form, so you wait until the paperback edition.

Many believe that we have the right to entertain ourselves. But there is no constitution, commandment or law which grants us the Right To Be Entertained. Computer games are a service, not a divine right. If you want us developers to keep providing that service, we bloody well expect to get paid for it. If you don't want to pay, go and write your own games.

Finally, great mag, of course. And an interesting sales mechanism. This may be the beginning of the end for print magazines - a far more believable prospect than those "electronic books" we keep hearing about.

Yours, seriously annoyed by 18 years of hearing the same old tripe,

Sean Timarco Baggaley (computer games development FAQ writer).

FG: I agree to a certain extent. The problem is, what games are re-released on budget is dictated by the publishers themselves (as, er, are full-priced games) and therefore the choice is limited. And though it's not always the case, games appear on budget because they didn't sell enough of the stock they pressed first time round.