You're viewing a single thread.
Yeah, Nintendo is smoking unfiltered crack, lol. Who the hell has $80-90 to throw at every game in the midst of an unnecessary economic downturn and possible worldwide meltdown?
Oh no, just a USA meltdown. Trump isn't great for other economies, but we still have the rest of the world to trade with. The only thing he is achieving is making the usa less relevant by the day.
Stocks are down all over the globe, not sure if you noticed.
It will still cause other countries economies to shrink, as most economies are interlinked in the modern age; but even with the loss in GDP, removing US trade/tech/military reliance is definitely for the better imo. The USA positioning themselves alongside Russia has woke up the rest of the world to the fact that America isn't simply arrogant... It's also dangerous.
I don't see a way back for the US in all honesty. The problem isn't the rogue state behaviour, it's the virile support for such actions seen from many of their citizens. In the coming years we'll no doubt see American military bases being shutdown across the globe, in retaliation to their animosity, and it will only continue further until the US is a pariah state.
I suppose it's some solace that the democrats are able to somewhat slow the implosion of the US through the senate, but that won't be enough to stop them falling out of favour with the rest of the world, and thus losing a huge part of their power. And I have to wonder, is this the exact outcome Putin wanted (America surviving, but struggling... Allowing them to exist as the bad guy, Rather than complete desolation), or just a happy accident after getting Krasnov elected?.
It's because a significant portion of our population are complete dumbasses.
One third of the country are bigots believing every piece of propaganda.
One third of our country doesn't think politics affects them.
10-15% (ballparking) have good political intentions, but don't think voting will solve anything.
That leaves about 20-25% to actually contribute politically with critical thinking skills and understanding various social issues.
Yeah we're fucked.
Based on some economic models I've read about, the only countries whose GDP will be hurt by this are America, Canada and Mexico. In that order.
Most of the world is expected to break even or benefit because countries will act in their best interest and route around Trump's stupid.
I can't speak for every country, but I know that the UK (where I'm based) is looking at a GDP shrink of around 1%; though given our 'special relationship' with the US, and our FAFO era with Brexit, we're probably more dependant on American trade than your average long distance ally (or should I say former ally?), so I could definitely see other countries breaking even or even profiting from it.
I can't speak definitively but it will probably hurt Australia to some extent. At least if they don't want to get dragged into one of our really stupid wars that we undoubtedly have coming.
How does one filter crack? I need to know for my pulmonary health.
I could be wrong, but doesn't the process of cooking the cocaine into crack kind of "filter" it so to speak?
Not in the slightest. It only cuts it so you can increase your yield at the cost of needing to sell a fundamentally different product.
I've never been good at chemistry, so I'm probably misremembering...
My understanding was that the cocaine's chemical structure is what reacts with the baking soda (and heat), leaving the adulterants to burn off. I guess unless they share the same property that binds the cocaine with the baking soda. The baking soda isn't meant to increase weight, there is an actual chemistry-based reason that it's used.
It's why people stopped "free-basing" cocaine once crack came around. "Free-base" is a chemistry term, and the reaction with the baking soda is what makes it no longer "free-base."
It weighs more because of the baking soda, but that's just like a substrate to deliver the cocaine, not an adulterant meant to make it weigh more.
Again, could be wrong and don't feel like looking it up because I don't really care about crack or cocaine
I get your point, but I'll probably end up paying that. The exclusives are pricey but I almost always end up playing them for 50-100+ hours each, so I can't really complain 🤷♂️
This line of thinking is why we are being price gouged to begin with.
"it's $20 for a skin..... Eh I'll buy it." I have friends that do that. Meanwhile I almost never buy a game at launch because I'll just wait for a sale and for the game to be fixed post launch.
The trouble is, Nintendo games don't even go on sale, so you can't do that. Nintendo used to be the affordable accessible console. Now they're the opposite.
I haven't had a desire to play their games luckily, but the emulators are good. I tried Pokémon Arceus with one and it ran flawlessly. The game was boring as hell from what I played, but I wanted to see how it functioned compared to the older games I know.
Yeah. I was providing context and a small joke in relation to the comment about how we got here. I mostly play Steam games anyway.
A few years ago my wife bought a switch, we occasionally play it, but yes I saw the games were basically never on sale.
At this point in the world I just want to reward one of the few companies that has yet to screw me over. Everything I've ever bought from Nintendo still works to this day, and I'm generally expecting it to work forever. No one else is making products like that, it's all short-term shareholder profits-- who cares about the customer? If you want to pay what garbage is priced at, you'll get garbage in the end.
Imagine simping for a soulless corporation who doesn't give of fuck if you exist. How is anything nintendo doing consumer friendly? You're definitely on that copium, champ.
I'm just speaking from personal experience, friend. I understand someone will probably have a list of like 10 links of counterexamples handy but I can say with fair confidence they probably haven't affected me. Hell, my original joycons actually still work, though I did buy my Switch a couple years after release. And I'm not simping for anything, I will 100% change my stance the day Nintendo starts screwing me over 🤷♂️
You do realize that video game prices haven't increased with inflation in years, right? A $60 game in 2008 would be $88 today just from inflation. This isn't price gouging, it's inflation correction.
It doesn't matter if a $60 game in 2008 is worth $88 now if wages haven't gone up to match that. Did you know that (at least in the US) food prices usually aren't included in inflation calculations because they fluctuate too much? People have other things to pay for with their wages that aren't video games, and those costs aren't going down either.
Literally nothing ever has stayed in lockstep with wages, that's not even relevant to the discussion at hand. Not sure why you think video games would be special, especially video games by Nintendo, solijce they're literally the last ones on the "raise video game prices" train.
Entertainment is not a necessity, it's not like people need it to survive. When it doesn't move with wages people find ways to make it affordable (e.g. piracy, 2nd hand markets, or sharing physical copies with friends), or they find something else (steam, indie games, etc.). Wages are directly responsible for game prices in a lot of ways, and there are pretty good Steam statistics on this as well (which is why a lot of Steam games aren't priced with 1:1 conversions in different regions, because doing so would basically price entire regions out of buying games).
Pricing fans out of games is exactly how AAA studios go under. A big AAA game flopping is basically a death sentence for a studio in the current landscape, and if Microsoft isn't immune to that then Nintendo definitely isn't.
And in addition to what Zangoose said, your argument ignores the basic principle of technological progress: as industries mature, costs typically decrease, not increase. Economies of scale, automation, and digital distribution should all lower the cost of making and selling a game over time.
A $60 game in 2008 had to be printed on physical discs, boxed, shipped to stores, and supported with traditional advertising. Today, most games are sold digitally, cutting out huge portions of that overhead. Studios also reuse engines, assets, and development pipelines now more than ever.
Sure, inflation is real—but so are productivity gains. If your costs are going up despite all these efficiencies, that’s not just inflation—it’s mismanagement or greed. Consumers don’t owe companies an inflation-adjusted price just because they want to maintain record-breaking profits and raise prices.
Uh, video games have VERY famously not been decreasing in cost to create- AAA games cost VASTLY more to create now than in 2008. The teams are much, much larger, for one.
It's a trend I personally think is stupid and unnecessary, but productivity gains aren't really happening that way in game dev.
CEO pay has also increased VASTLY, something isn't quite adding up here. 🤔
Yeah, sales have also gone way up.
So then why haven't software developer's salaries gone up proportionally?
Cause that's not how salaries work?
Salaries grow because people negotiate for better salaries, either through collective action or by being indispensable and getting better offers, not by magic.
The game industry is full of wannabes chomping at the bit to get in, so maybe seniors can hope to haggle for a higher cut or become partners of a studio, everyone else is entirely replaceable, which means their salaries will grow extremely slowly already.
Add to that that the industry selects for financially stable/affluent croney kids by using unpaid internships to filter anyone who would be overly dependent on their salary and basically select for rich "starving" artist types and you have a recipe for a ridiculously strong buyer's market when it comes to salaries.