There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months)
release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I
couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did
pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the
Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
This new price-point isn't novel, of course; companies like Ubisoft
have been flirting with the price-hike for several years. It's also, economically, long overdue; prices for everything else have
skyrocketed, but games still linger in the $40-60 range. Still, gamers
have been reluctant to embrace these higher prices, and few publishers
have adamantly stuck to it.
But Nintendo's intent might finally be the catalyst that makes the $70
price tag the new standard. I think that we'll start seeing more and
more new games release for $70USD now that Nintendo has set its flag
on that price.
Not that it matters to me. I almost never buy at full price anyway.
The PC video-game market is especially competitive on price anyway,
what with there being so many FREE games available anyway. This just
makes it less likely I'll ever buy day-one.
What do you think; will Nintendo's decision be the factor to moving
much of the industry to this higher price point?
On 4/3/2025 7:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months)
release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I
couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did
pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the
Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
Does that include the tariff for us Trump World slaves?
On 4/3/2025 7:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Does that include the tariff for us Trump World slaves?
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months)
release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I
couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did
pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the
Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 07:54:55 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 7:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Does that include the tariff for us Trump World slaves?
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months)
release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I
couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did
pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the
Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
I know Trump is kind of a cartoonish,
orange-with-road-kill-on-his-head sort of douche and all, but isn't he
kind of right about the inequity that's been going on with regard to
tariffs?
On 4/3/2025 3:03 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 07:54:55 -0700, Dimensional TravelerNo, actually he isn't. It isn't simple to explain why he is wrong though.
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 7:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Does that include the tariff for us Trump World slaves?
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months)
release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I
couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did
pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the
Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
I know Trump is kind of a cartoonish,
orange-with-road-kill-on-his-head sort of douche and all, but isn't he
kind of right about the inequity that's been going on with regard to
tariffs?
On 4/3/2025 3:03 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 07:54:55 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 7:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months)
release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I
couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did
pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the
Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
Does that include the tariff for us Trump World slaves?
I know Trump is kind of a cartoonish,
orange-with-road-kill-on-his-head sort of douche and all, but isn't he
kind of right about the inequity that's been going on with regard to
tariffs?
No, actually he isn't. It isn't simple to explain why he is wrong though.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:35:03 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 3:03 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 07:54:55 -0700, Dimensional TravelerNo, actually he isn't. It isn't simple to explain why he is wrong though.
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 7:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Does that include the tariff for us Trump World slaves?
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months) >>>>> release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I
couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did
pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the
Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
I know Trump is kind of a cartoonish,
orange-with-road-kill-on-his-head sort of douche and all, but isn't he
kind of right about the inequity that's been going on with regard to
tariffs?
It kind of is actually as long as you're not opposed to explaining
what he's wrong about. The calculated numbers presented as if they
are actual foreign tariffs are really kind of "bottom line" numbers
that take into consideration real world trade deficit inequity. Sort
of like if you buy a house and the mortage company sells you a 2.5%
interest rate, but then you realize with all the terms of the loan
that the real world APR is like 8% assuming you pay it off in 10 years
and grows exponentially if you can't.
So the "fictitious tariff" numbers are just measuring the relative
impact from countries that keep selling but not buying (doesn't sound
like free trade, does it?). That's the source of the trade deficit he
is trying to solve.
It's actually a good idea if you want the US to prosper, it's just (in
his usual form) not delivered very well. And probably not of much
interest to those who don't understand any of it.
On 4/3/2025 7:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Does that include the tariff for us Trump World slaves?
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months)
release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I
couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did
pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the
Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
On 4/3/2025 5:59 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:35:03 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 3:03 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:It kind of is actually as long as you're not opposed to explaining
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 07:54:55 -0700, Dimensional TravelerNo, actually he isn't. It isn't simple to explain why he is wrong though. >>
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 7:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Does that include the tariff for us Trump World slaves?
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months) >>>>>> release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I
couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did
pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the >>>>>> Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
I know Trump is kind of a cartoonish,
orange-with-road-kill-on-his-head sort of douche and all, but isn't he >>>> kind of right about the inequity that's been going on with regard to
tariffs?
what he's wrong about. The calculated numbers presented as if they
are actual foreign tariffs are really kind of "bottom line" numbers
that take into consideration real world trade deficit inequity. Sort
of like if you buy a house and the mortage company sells you a 2.5%
interest rate, but then you realize with all the terms of the loan
that the real world APR is like 8% assuming you pay it off in 10 years
and grows exponentially if you can't.
So the "fictitious tariff" numbers are just measuring the relative
impact from countries that keep selling but not buying (doesn't sound
like free trade, does it?). That's the source of the trade deficit he
is trying to solve.
It's actually a good idea if you want the US to prosper, it's just (in
his usual form) not delivered very well. And probably not of much
interest to those who don't understand any of it.
And those numbers don't include a lot of non-physical services. When
those get included the US actually has a trade surplus.
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 07:54:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 5:59 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:35:03 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 3:03 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:It kind of is actually as long as you're not opposed to explaining
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 07:54:55 -0700, Dimensional TravelerNo, actually he isn't. It isn't simple to explain why he is wrong though. >>>
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 7:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Does that include the tariff for us Trump World slaves?
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months) >>>>>>> release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I >>>>>>> couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did >>>>>>> pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the >>>>>>> Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
I know Trump is kind of a cartoonish,
orange-with-road-kill-on-his-head sort of douche and all, but isn't he >>>>> kind of right about the inequity that's been going on with regard to >>>>> tariffs?
what he's wrong about. The calculated numbers presented as if they
are actual foreign tariffs are really kind of "bottom line" numbers
that take into consideration real world trade deficit inequity. Sort
of like if you buy a house and the mortage company sells you a 2.5%
interest rate, but then you realize with all the terms of the loan
that the real world APR is like 8% assuming you pay it off in 10 years
and grows exponentially if you can't.
So the "fictitious tariff" numbers are just measuring the relative
impact from countries that keep selling but not buying (doesn't sound
like free trade, does it?). That's the source of the trade deficit he
is trying to solve.
It's actually a good idea if you want the US to prosper, it's just (in
his usual form) not delivered very well. And probably not of much
interest to those who don't understand any of it.
And those numbers don't include a lot of non-physical services. When
those get included the US actually has a trade surplus.
Are your own numbers including 600,000 or so H1B workers that come to
this country each year, most of which are writing shit/substandard
code, and not out of actual talent or demand deficit but simply as a
way to hold down costs of large scale contracts (which overcharge the
client for substandard work that will need more repair than the
initial quoted cost)?
When "services" like Netflix or whatever are consumed in other
countries, they are done so at a much lower rate. A full scope
account on Netflix account in Thailand costs about $3 the last time I
was there. So the tariff math mentioned earlier still applies.
Rin Stowleigh wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 07:54:42 -0700, Dimensional TravelerThe tariffs are here to stay. They even the playing field. Let's hope
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 5:59 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:35:03 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 3:03 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 07:54:55 -0700, Dimensional TravelerNo, actually he isn't. It isn't simple to explain why he is wrong though.
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 7:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Does that include the tariff for us Trump World slaves?
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months) >>>>>>>> release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I >>>>>>>> couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in >>>>>>>> consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did >>>>>>>> pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the >>>>>>>> Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
I know Trump is kind of a cartoonish,
orange-with-road-kill-on-his-head sort of douche and all, but isn't he >>>>>> kind of right about the inequity that's been going on with regard to >>>>>> tariffs?
It kind of is actually as long as you're not opposed to explaining
what he's wrong about. The calculated numbers presented as if they
are actual foreign tariffs are really kind of "bottom line" numbers
that take into consideration real world trade deficit inequity. Sort
of like if you buy a house and the mortage company sells you a 2.5%
interest rate, but then you realize with all the terms of the loan
that the real world APR is like 8% assuming you pay it off in 10 years >>>> and grows exponentially if you can't.
So the "fictitious tariff" numbers are just measuring the relative
impact from countries that keep selling but not buying (doesn't sound
like free trade, does it?). That's the source of the trade deficit he >>>> is trying to solve.
It's actually a good idea if you want the US to prosper, it's just (in >>>> his usual form) not delivered very well. And probably not of much
interest to those who don't understand any of it.
And those numbers don't include a lot of non-physical services. When
those get included the US actually has a trade surplus.
Are your own numbers including 600,000 or so H1B workers that come to
this country each year, most of which are writing shit/substandard
code, and not out of actual talent or demand deficit but simply as a
way to hold down costs of large scale contracts (which overcharge the
client for substandard work that will need more repair than the
initial quoted cost)?
When "services" like Netflix or whatever are consumed in other
countries, they are done so at a much lower rate. A full scope
account on Netflix account in Thailand costs about $3 the last time I
was there. So the tariff math mentioned earlier still applies.
all this crying doesn't convince Trump to back down.
Life's tough.
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 19:33:49 -0500, .../v]andrak|?...
<jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:
Rin Stowleigh wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 07:54:42 -0700, Dimensional TravelerThe tariffs are here to stay. They even the playing field. Let's hope
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 5:59 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:35:03 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 3:03 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 07:54:55 -0700, Dimensional TravelerNo, actually he isn't. It isn't simple to explain why he is wrong though.
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 7:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Does that include the tariff for us Trump World slaves?
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months) >>>>>>>>> release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I >>>>>>>>> couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in >>>>>>>>> consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did >>>>>>>>> pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the >>>>>>>>> Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
I know Trump is kind of a cartoonish,
orange-with-road-kill-on-his-head sort of douche and all, but isn't he >>>>>>> kind of right about the inequity that's been going on with regard to >>>>>>> tariffs?
It kind of is actually as long as you're not opposed to explaining
what he's wrong about. The calculated numbers presented as if they
are actual foreign tariffs are really kind of "bottom line" numbers
that take into consideration real world trade deficit inequity. Sort >>>>> of like if you buy a house and the mortage company sells you a 2.5%
interest rate, but then you realize with all the terms of the loan
that the real world APR is like 8% assuming you pay it off in 10 years >>>>> and grows exponentially if you can't.
So the "fictitious tariff" numbers are just measuring the relative
impact from countries that keep selling but not buying (doesn't sound >>>>> like free trade, does it?). That's the source of the trade deficit he >>>>> is trying to solve.
It's actually a good idea if you want the US to prosper, it's just (in >>>>> his usual form) not delivered very well. And probably not of much
interest to those who don't understand any of it.
And those numbers don't include a lot of non-physical services. When
those get included the US actually has a trade surplus.
Are your own numbers including 600,000 or so H1B workers that come to
this country each year, most of which are writing shit/substandard
code, and not out of actual talent or demand deficit but simply as a
way to hold down costs of large scale contracts (which overcharge the
client for substandard work that will need more repair than the
initial quoted cost)?
When "services" like Netflix or whatever are consumed in other
countries, they are done so at a much lower rate. A full scope
account on Netflix account in Thailand costs about $3 the last time I
was there. So the tariff math mentioned earlier still applies.
all this crying doesn't convince Trump to back down.
Life's tough.
They are necessary to start reeling the bullshit in. All of these
cities with shit tons of people living in fucking tents because
snowflakism told them they have the right to opioid themselves into
oblivion and make a youtube channel about it to pay for the habit. And
once it gets to the point that gender confusion becomes part of the educational curriculum, then you know a country is headed to hell in a handbasket and needs correction. DEI is collapsing because stupidity
always caves in on itself.
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months)
release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I
couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did
pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the
Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
This new price-point isn't novel, of course; companies like Ubisoft
have been flirting with the price-hike for several years. It's also, economically, long overdue; prices for everything else have
skyrocketed, but games still linger in the $40-60 range. Still, gamers
have been reluctant to embrace these higher prices, and few publishers
have adamantly stuck to it.
But Nintendo's intent might finally be the catalyst that makes the $70
price tag the new standard. I think that we'll start seeing more and
more new games release for $70USD now that Nintendo has set its flag
on that price.
Not that it matters to me. I almost never buy at full price anyway.
The PC video-game market is especially competitive on price anyway,
what with there being so many FREE games available anyway. This just
makes it less likely I'll ever buy day-one.
What do you think; will Nintendo's decision be the factor to moving
much of the industry to this higher price point?
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months)
release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I
couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did
pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the
Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
Ohg pbecbengvbaf orvat pbecbengr, uvture cevprf ner varivgnoyr rira
jura gneevsf qba'g qverpgyl nssrpg gur cebqhpg orvat fbyq. "Pnef ner
abj 25% zber rkcrafvir? Jryy, hc gur cevpr ba fnaq (be jungrire) gb
zngpu, whfg 'pnhfr jr pna."
Gneevsf uryc abobql. Vg whfg erfhygf va genqr-jnef naq uvture cevprf
npebff gur obneq, rira sbe crbcyr va angvbaf gung unir abguvat gb jvgu
gur pbasyvpg. Vg'f fghcvq naq qrfgehpgvir naq ungrshy, naq nofbyhgryl
va punenpgre sbe gur zbqrea Havgrq Fgngrf bs Nzrevpn. Jryy, gurl'yy
ernc jung gurl fbj.
On 03/04/2025 15:44, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months)
release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I
couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did
pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the
Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
I do appreciate that prices have to go up but with the current economic >climate I do wonder if they are going to shoot themselves in the foot
with not just game prices but the console itself. Anecdotally when I've
seen them in the wild it's almost inevitable in the hands of a child and
not an adult. With the way tariffs are going the affordability is
probably going to get even worse unless the hardware cost already has it >factored in.
Video-game prices have been decoupled from reality for quite a while,
stuck in the $40-60 doldrums long after that price has been able to
pay for their development (hence the rush to monetize the player in
all sorts of other ways). That it's lasted so long has only been
because the scale of the operations has permitted it ("we'll make it
up in volume!"). That $80 game in 1989 might have sold 50,000 copies.
Today it will sell in the tens of millions.
I keep telling myself I'm not falling for that and if we don't buy it it will end being another 3DS situation, but apparently people now are
idiots that buy a new apple i-poo-ne every 2 years. And although my
Steam Deck has me covered, there's a certain first party title that I
can't get anywhere else and fir which emulation is not an option.
Certainly I dislike
the idea of paying $80 for a game and THEN having to pay more for MTX
and expansions that used to be included in base games.
Now, of course, the EU Consumer Protection Commission's
recommendations don't have force of law; this still needs to be voted
on by the EU first. But the EU has been very pro-active in consumer protections and privacy and it isn't that unlikely that the EU will
push these suggestions forward. And unlike the piecemeal
anti-lootbox/MTX laws that have already been passed individually by a
few member states (most notably Belgium), if the whole EU stands by
these recommendations, it won't be something that can be ignored.
More, the EU doesn't give slap-on-the-wrist fines to violators either.
This won't be something that publishers can just disregard, short of abandoning the EU market (and 1/3 of their revenue) entirely
Well firstly, that saves me making a post about it.
So on to the meat,
the legal status seems slightly vague as I believe the CPC Network* have >picked a target (some horse game aimed squarely at kids)
and are using
the interpretation of existing EU consumer protect laws to say these
type of practices go against them. My assumption is that if you get a
case in one member state then you've basically given the green light to
all member states.
One of the funny parts was that organisation that represents the games >industry (which doesn't include consumers of course) have said that this
may disrupt games for users. Yes how awful having some of your games >disrupted by removing parts of MTX - won't anybody think of the grande >fromages yearly bonuses!
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 08:16:17 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
Well firstly, that saves me making a post about it.
Heh. I didn't think it was worth a separate thread either, hence my
hijacking an earlier one. I'm not so sure how much interest there is
about the business aspect of game development in csipga so I usually
try to limit the number of separate threads on the topic. Well, now we
have one more, I guess ;-)
So on to the meat,
the legal status seems slightly vague as I believe the CPC Network* have
picked a target (some horse game aimed squarely at kids)
If I recall, it was the Swedish consumer protection commission that
had an issue with the horse game, and they took it up with the EU,
where the EU CPC raised the stakes to make it apply for _all_ games.
and are using
the interpretation of existing EU consumer protect laws to say these
type of practices go against them. My assumption is that if you get a
case in one member state then you've basically given the green light to
all member states.
Quite. One of the problems with Belgium's anti lootbox law was it was
only effective in Belgium
[for Americans: Belgium is a very small country, about
the size of Vermont, with a population of only 11 million]
and thus the law was generally ignored or -at best- the
game was marked as 'not for sale in Belgium' because the publishers
could ignore so small. But the EU is 445 million people
[for Americans: that's 125% the size of the US population]
so its unlikely that the publishers are going to pull out
of _that_ market. More likely, they'll create a "EU version" of the
game, which will lack these odious features, while America gets the
'regular' overly monetized crap. But Americans don't seem interested
in quality anyway, so I guess that's fine?
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 08:16:17 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
Well firstly, that saves me making a post about it.
Heh. I didn't think it was worth a separate thread either, hence my
hijacking an earlier one. I'm not so sure how much interest there is
about the business aspect of game development in csipga so I usually
try to limit the number of separate threads on the topic. Well, now we
have one more, I guess ;-)
So on to the meat,
the legal status seems slightly vague as I believe the CPC Network* have
picked a target (some horse game aimed squarely at kids)
If I recall, it was the Swedish consumer protection commission that
had an issue with the horse game, and they took it up with the EU,
where the EU CPC raised the stakes to make it apply for _all_ games.
and are using
the interpretation of existing EU consumer protect laws to say these
type of practices go against them. My assumption is that if you get a
case in one member state then you've basically given the green light to
all member states.
Quite. One of the problems with Belgium's anti lootbox law was it was
only effective in Belgium
[for Americans: Belgium is a very small country, about
the size of Vermont, with a population of only 11 million]
and thus the law was generally ignored or -at best- the
game was marked as 'not for sale in Belgium' because the publishers
could ignore so small. But the EU is 445 million people
[for Americans: that's 125% the size of the US population]
so its unlikely that the publishers are going to pull out
of _that_ market. More likely, they'll create a "EU version" of the
game, which will lack these odious features, while America gets the
'regular' overly monetized crap. But Americans don't seem interested
in quality anyway, so I guess that's fine?
One of the funny parts was that organisation that represents the games
industry (which doesn't include consumers of course) have said that this
may disrupt games for users. Yes how awful having some of your games
disrupted by removing parts of MTX - won't anybody think of the grande
fromages yearly bonuses!
The thing is, right now MTX are a necessity for some games.
Development costs have skyrocketed, and volume sales are no longer
sufficient to cover those expenses anymore. It isn't _pure_ greed that
makes publishers turn to these 'alternative' methods of funding. It's
just that MTX and lootboxes and all the rest are so _effective_ that
they've gained a lot more importance, to the point that they are now
the focus of design (rather than, you know, making a good product).
But even the best products struggle to break even if they don't have post-sale transactions.
Solutions to this problem include lowering development costs (which
could mean making smaller games, but mostly seems to be in the way of replacing skilled artisans with AI slop, or firing everybody below
C-level ten seconds after the game ships), or by raising the retail
price of games. But publishers are still hooked on the drip of
constant money from MTX; even if they could get development costs
under control, they'd STILL monetize every aspect of their games to
suck out every dollar or euro out of their customers. That's where
laws like this come in.
On Thu, 03 Apr 2025 10:44:00 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
Side note:
Apparently the Switch 2 version of "Legend of Zelda: Breath of the
Wild" (which will be a 'complete' version) will costs $90. I guess
that once you set the 'new standard' price at $70, you might as well
go for broke and up the price of the game everyone actually wants
(even if it is almost ten years old by now) at $90.
AS I said, I'm not totally against the price hike; it's been a long
time coming and normalizing at this higher rate might make some
publishers
[Not the Ubisofts or EAs or Take Twos or
ActiMicroBethesdaVisionSofts; I mean the smaller
publishers that may still prioritize quality games
over revenue-at-any-cost]
reconsider things like MTX, F2P or live-service nonsense
designed to endlessly vaccuum cash out of player's pockets because
it's the only way to remain solvent.
Still, $90 is quite a jump. Especially for a game that's been released
on at least two previous platforms already. That's getting to
Bethesda-level of audience-milking.
It kind of is actually as long as you're not opposed to explainingThe calculated numbers were lies to begin with, they omitted the service numbers in the calculations. take the EU for an example, the EU has a
what he's wrong about. The calculated numbers presented as if they
are actual foreign tariffs are really kind of "bottom line" numbers
When "services" like Netflix or whatever are consumed in otherNope because it still reels 3 dollars into the usa!
countries, they are done so at a much lower rate. A full scope
account on Netflix account in Thailand costs about $3 the last time I
was there. So the tariff math mentioned earlier still applies.
On 03/04/2025 15:44, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:The prices have been on the 70 Dollar mark for quite a while in the Playstation area of things, and publishers are complaining left and
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months)
release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I
couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did
pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the
Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
I do appreciate that prices have to go up but with the current economic climate I do wonder if they are going to shoot themselves in the foot
with not just game prices but the console itself. Anecdotally when I've
seen them in the wild it's almost inevitable in the hands of a child and
not an adult. With the way tariffs are going the affordability is
probably going to get even worse unless the hardware cost already has it factored in.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,030 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 54:51:38 |
| Calls: | 13,348 |
| Files: | 186,574 |
| D/L today: |
18 files (928K bytes) |
| Messages: | 3,358,427 |