Last week I talked about how GamePass has crossed a threshold for me, where the price they’re asking is no longer justified by the value the service offers; I’ll just buy the games I want directly instead. That’s a personal choice I make regardless, based on where I want to put my dollars, but I do question if the idea of “voting with our wallets” has an impact anymore.

There were a number of economic reports this year that suggested around 10% of the US population (those making over $250k a year) are now responsible for almost half of consumer personal spending (unverified). If that’s the sort of divide we’re approaching, I wouldn’t be surprised if companies have realized it’s easier to just court that consumer instead, the one with a ton of disposable income that isn’t as picky about value. So when Microsoft makes a decision to ratchet up the price of GamePass, do you think they’ve simply done the math and determined that the amount of extra income they generate from the people that stay on, outweighs lost income from anyone who might bail on the service?

After all, why try to make a better product if you have enough people to just pay you more for the same old product, right?