Your graph stops short of the 2008 economic crash, so it's not very informative about the current situation after 5 years of economical crisis.

Besides, what is 'net worth'? I can't see a description of what is meant by the graph.

Edit: and another thing, an average wealth per family is a meaningless number nowadays, because of the growing gap between rich and poor and the disappearance of the middle-class. There is no such thing as an average family.
Well, I don't have my first flatscreen TV yet, it's still somewhere in the future. My latest tube television is still perfectly function and I don't see myself buying a flatscreen unless my old TV gets broken.

This. So much every single word in this. If I could, I would infinitely +rep this post.

That guy's not homeless...that's just Gary Busey.

Grandma? Is that you? I told you not to browse dubious gaming sites without asking me if they're safe! ;)

Of course there are people who don't need everything NOW... And of course there are people who are really broke (unemployment can hit you hard). What I wrote is just the general impression I got over the last years. I think I've just seen too many people saying they're broke while browsing the internet on their new smartphone, with their super cheap 60 Euro-plan, watching TV on a less than 5 years old flat screen and driving less than 7 or 8 years old cars. Economy crisis? Yeah, sure... That's why the market for electronic luxury goods exploded during the last years.

But maybe I'm a bit radical... In fact I consider myself pretty wealthy, while I'm just "normal". I have a car, I live in a flat in the city (for rent), I have a 40" TV and I can afford to drink Coca Cola (instead of some horrible store brand). I even manage to save some money for old age. What more can I ask for? Sure, my 8 years old Peugeot 307 could be a Lotus Elise. And yes, the flat could be mine and it could have 200sqm. I wouldn't complain about a new 50" TV either. And maybe it would be funny to import Mexican Coke. I even could afford one or two of those things. But... Are they really worth it? No matter where your Coke comes from, it's always yellow when it goes down the sink...

I stand on both sides of this issue at various times. As for the OP, I don't think your argument is very sound. The cost of EVERYTHING else is going up, the cost of games isn't going down because people don't have money. The price of going to the movies has doubled in my lifetime. The cost of new games has also gone up.

I think what you may be missing is that NOW there is a realization that companies can keep making money by selling old things. In the past, if you wanted a copy of Pacman, you had to find it on Ebay and the makers of Pacman made no additional profit. Those companies have realized that people will always want to experience various generations of entertainment and so new business models are born. Additionally tech exists that didn't exist 15 years ago. Steaming media, downloadable services, DRM, etc.

Prices haven't dropped, rather, the bargain bin has been digitally created and extended.

Yes, exactly. I've been to a few different soup kitchens and they all are a little different. But a lot of times, folks feel shame for getting the hand-out or they are overcome by their circumstances and find it difficult to find joy. In this particular one, the entire building was falling apart. The building was sad, the patrons were sad. Everything was positively dreary. But in the midst of this, two guys had two ancient laptops somehow connected together (I can't remember if it was a cross-over cable or what), big smiles on their face, competing (occasionally rather loudly) in a virtual space in the middle of it all.

Fun is usually reserved for those with time, energy and resources. And a lot of times, our homeless have little of either. I've found some with lots of time (those without jobs), but most I've worked with work two jobs, slept on the street a few nights a week (we eventually got our system up to accommodate a group of guys every night of the winter, but we couldn't get the volunteers for the summer months -- we only had a women's shelter in town. The men's shelter was destroyed by a tornado.).

Usually, the guys would go to bed very early b/c they had to get up early for their labor jobs. But as soon as we finished eating, we'd put up a movie of their choice, hand out decks of cards and give them a shot at some evening fun with one another. I ran D&D in a corner for my part, but most guys weren't interested. But the volunteers would play after everyone went to bed. :)

I think Gary Busey is homeless. :P

One can only make so many bad movies before all landlords will shun you -- money or not. And thus Gary Busey and Ashton Kutcher are destined for homelessness.

My estimation and hope was always that games become cheap eventually some years after release. So personal budget just determines the time when you can play a game for the first time. Piracy changes the equation a bit, but most people can play many games if they can wait.

Another argument for low game value could be that publishers selling superb games are not really thinking ahead and might destroy their future selling potential. Basically publishers shouldn't be interested very much in replayability??

Actually, adjusted for inflation, the price of going to see a movie has remained roughly the same, at least in the US (Germany too, but in the UK it has indeed risen considerably), and the price of games is also cheaper when adjusted for inflation.

Part of the decline in prices is certainly due to the economic problems, but note that this decline started before the depression came. Prices going down is simply a manifestation of market forces at play - the market is aware that there is infinite supply and zero cost of reproduction, so they are applying pressure to adjust the price accordingly. In economic terms, the only value associated with a digital licence is that of 'goodwill'.

It's essentially economies of scale. We pay money for beer because (a) water, hops, barley and yeast all cost money to produce and (b) the amount of beer is finite. If two bottles of beer cost $5 to make in total, then each is worth $2.50. Demand in the face of scarcity combined with market control/market entry barriers raises that price and creates profitability. A brewery can increase its profitability by making more bottles while applying economies of scale. Each bottle it makes will be cheaper, because you only need one machine etc. mass production becomes cheaper, so a brewery can make 100 bottles of beer for $150, charge $2.50 and make a meaty profit.

Now imagine if someone came along and invented a machine that makes bottles of beer perpetually without the need for ingredients. It just keeps pumping out bottles. If one bottle of beer can be made with it, it is worth whatever it cost to make the machine. If two bottles of beer can be made with it, it is worth whatever it cost to make the machine divided by 2 and so on.

The inventor is overjoyed because he can charge $2.50 for endless bottles of beer without paying anything for it. But then someone else comes along and also invents a perpetual beer-brewing machine. And then another, and then another. All of a sudden you have intense competition with prices approaching zero because everyone needs to compete with one another.

That is digital distribution in a nutshell. You have your inventor (the development team) who produces a beer-brewing machine (the intellectual property) and creates endless bottles of beer (the digital licences). It's the commercial pipe-dream - maximum profit at zero-cost production - but sadly, it's just that. A pipe-dream. It doesn't take in account price pressure and competition.

In reality, digital distribution isn't a 100% zero-cost operation. Bandwidth, servers and support staff all cost money. It doesn't take all that many sales for these costs to be recouped though, meaning that the value of each game is actually comparatively low.

Steam is an unusual situation in this respect though - significant amounts of the traffic on Steam's network is from non-paying customers. Judging by SteamCharts' figures, DotA 2 accounts for at least 50% of Steam's traffic, and there are also significant numbers of buyers from retail, GamersGate, GMG, Humble Store and other sites, for which Valve doesn't see a penny.

This is why I'm sceptical about claims of Valve's success. They post all kinds of useless information like how many supposed active accounts they have and what share of revenue comes from each country, but the silence about actual sales figures (together with the ban in distribution agreements on disclosing sales figures) tells me that they're not rolling in the moolah as much as people would have us believe.

Digital distribution really is a ticking timebomb.

(Sorry about the wall of text)

I see what you meant before. I'm surprised they were able to hold on to their laptops. A lot of homeless people steal from other homeless people to buy drugs.

Same here, i'm still using my good old tube TV, too. And i won't buy a flatscreen TV as long as i can still get a cheap tube TV for just a few bucks everywhere.

This guy is completely on point. In the US, at least, rampant consumerism has probably become the #1 cause of perceived poverty. People break their necks to spend money on shit they don't need, and that they sometimes don't even particularly want.

.
.
There are those who are finding themselves asking for more hours at work because they're 'hurting' as they've recently bought an ipad for everyone in the house hold. We call those 'Middle Class' - I'm referring to temporarily poor: People who can not find sufficient work and have to compensate their meager monthly earnings with hand outs --> which describes most of the people I've ran into over recent years.

This, this, a million times this. I have always wondered how my immediate family has made it decently economically despite the person who works, my father, being employed in a job that doesn't pay in the troves. None of us have cell phones (We really do not need them) and only my dad watches TV anymore so he is okay with watching things on a CRT television. I guess us not being slaves to the consumerism mentality is what is taking effect.