That really sucks. Consoles these days are just pcs with expensive libraries. If you can muster playing on pc with your son, the games are cheaper and I highly recommend it. On steam, you can filter by local coop and hook up two controllers to get a similar experience. You can even try emulating older games like on the ps2.
Wow, shift goalposts much? You said “$10 in qbert days” which was the 80s and now it’s not $10 it’s $30. You can just admit you got it wrong and it was never $10 (though I do think prices right now are actually well aligned at $60 because of the far lower costs in distribution and marketing). Also I’m NOT the OP who played thousands of hours on qbert. Great job quoting someone else.
$50-60 based on what? Adjusted for inflation in 1982, it’s more like $33 and distribution costs are way lower than back then. Truth is you just need to find a compelling gameplay loop but companies don’t like taking risks- not every game needs to be a massive endeavor like skyrim. Look at games like slay the spire and see how a cheap game can be compelling without having to be a AAA behemoth. And at that note, is there even anything wrong if a game only takes your attention for a hundred hours? I don’t see the need to extend the player’s attention with poor side quest grinding. These things add unnecessary cost
With a 2 min search I found a cyberpowerpc prebuilt for $700 that included a r7 5700 and rx 6700. And yes, you can absolutely get 60 fps at 1080p on some aaa titles; I don’t know where you get that idea you can’t, especially if you can tweak graphics settings (for the record, most pc gamers don’t even use ultra- high and medium presets are the most reasonable settings). I’m sure a title like Diablo 4 doesn’t require tuning at 1080p at all.