Sometimes, when reading online gaming editorials, I get into a ranting mood. This is one of those times.

Recently Jeff Gerstmann, Senior Editor of GameSpot.com, in an op-ed piece, said that he doesn't believe the sales pricing of newer lower-tier titles is helping the future of gaming. His question, which I'm betting is meant to be rhetorical, is who makes money when new titles go on sale that quickly. This begs the question: who cares?

He uses the recent Superman game as an example, saying neither Best Buy, Atari, or DC Comics makes money when the price of Revenge of Apokolips went down to 99 cents. I agree with him that Best Buy isn't making money - I also agree that they're probably trying to clear dead stock after investing hard cash into units that they thought would move big, based on the excellent marketing campaign behind the dud. I had one of those barf bags with the "big red S" on my cubicle wall for months - had I not rented first, I'm sure I would have bought that horrible thing.

I would think that GameSpot would want to take the gamers' side on this one. The standard $50 price tag on new games is unique and cruel. DVDs don't cost this much - even a full season of the Simpsons only costs $30-40 at Best Buy - and CDs have never been this outrageously priced. Consumers of video games have, therefore, become a discriminating demographic. Someone who pays $50 for that game wants to love their purchase; a middling experience just doesn't cut it at that price point.

Warner Bros. has the right idea. They want to cut royalties based on reviews for licensed games, ensuring that the Matrix debacle never happens again. I would have more sympathy for Atari if they weren't involved in both this and Superman - it would lend more credence to Mr. Gerstmann's argument, too. The reason these games are going down in price isn't that the consumer is lousing up sales, or that the retailers are giving up too soon. It's because these are, by and large, crappy games.

Atari isn't the only culprit. Vivendi Universal put a stake through the Buffy franchise, and charged the full cost for Chaos Bleeds. The same can be said for Van Helsing, which I'm sure will come away from the initial hype with a backlash from Hell. I would be annoyed with THQ for Evil Dead: A Fistful of Boomstick, but they were smart enough to release it at the palatable 19.99 price point. Of course, I will still maintain my anger at them for the Buffy game they produced for the Game Boy Advance, which I paid for at sticker. Bastards.

He also makes the case that Sega shouldn't feel the need to sell NFL 2K5 at a lower price just because Madden has beaten them in sales every year. I wonder if he heard that Madden outsold NFL 2K5 for the Xbox despite its lack of support for Microsoft's Xbox Live online service, and that EA Sports' support of Live this year should push those sales straight through the roof. Is the NFL 2KX line better? I don't know for sure, but at 19.99, I do know I'll be tempted to reach for it over Madden.

Is the trend sustainable? It's probably not. The only way that the game companies and retailers are going to get anywhere is if they start cracking down on the quality of their games, and stop releasing poorly developed titles in the interest of achieving a bottom line. Once consumers have confidence in a product, they will pay for it every time. Until then, viva la bargain!

Paul Tabachneck