Though it should be pointed out that GTA V has launched without any DLC to speak of. I'm sure they'll do it eventually as they did for GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption, but the DLC for those two games was more akin to an expansion pack.

>"With DLC and other bells and whistles tacked onto many games these days that would have normally been part of the core game, the base price quickly inflates to be more in line with inflation."

1.) Assertions about what "would have been part of the core game" are certainly popular, but not necessarily true or provable and certainly not universally applicable.

2.) Standard new game price held steady at ~$60 through three console generations prior to common place DLC. If inflation had been taking its toll we'd have been looking at $85 games prior to "horse armor".

Isn't that assuming a static level of wealth/production? Wealth/Production output isn't a zero sum game, it's not some pie you keep cutting into smaller slices. It can grow over time and even if you increase the number of slices cut, each slice can retain the same relative mass. It's when these don't match up that you find yourself with an inflationary or deflationary currency.

Yes, you can and do cause inflation by printing more money, but it's not as simple as you assert it to be, and it certainly doesn't warrant the rudeness to the parent.

Exactly which part of the Bureau of Labor Statistics methodology do you disagree with? http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi_methods.htm

Which part of the Billion Price Project's methodology do you disagree with? Its measure of inflation agrees with the BLS's pretty closely. http://bpp.mit.edu

Which measure of inflation do you prefer over those two, and where can we examine its methodology?

I don't need to rely on official figures. I can see from the lack of significant changes in my bills and household expenses that inflation is low.