People complain about $60 video games, but I don't have a problem paying that much for them.

In fact, I wouldn't have a problem if $70 were standard price for video games. (More than $70, we'll see.)

This is not an Americans should have to pay as much for games as the rest of the world rant. I am an American. I have lived in the United States my entire life. And while I live in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the country, I try my hardest to make it one of the poorest.

I have no problem paying more for video games because I am discriminating in what I purchase. Unless a game significantly improves upon or greatly differentiates itself from what I already own, I don't buy it. Even if it is a good game on its own merits.

Take, for example, Jak 3. Yes, it's a good game; yes, it's a better game than Jak II, but it isn't a significant improvement and it doesn't differentiate itself from its predecessor.

It's games like Jak 3 that convinced me last year to significantly cut back on the number of video games I buy. Why should I spend money on games just like the ones I already own, especially when I don't have enough time to fully play them all?

Answer: I shouldn't.

By purchasing fewer games, I can spend more time playing and enjoying each one. And they're all unique (or, at least, better) experiences now.

If a game is worth $50 to me, it's worth $60 or $70 to me. No more waiting for games to drop to $20. I buy only the best games now, so if a game isn't worth the full price it isn't worth buying at all.

If the video game industry were to release fewer games but put more resources into making those fewer games good and also put more resources into promoting those fewer, better games, I think others would feel the same way.

But the $300 limit for game consoles still applies, so no Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 for me for some time.