It’s so bad now that nearly all the articles are mainly clickbait or written to favor a particular game (no matter how mediocre), and someone had to create what’s called Saved You A Click.
There is a difference between saying something is too expensive and that it won’t sell. Otherwise live service games wouldn’t be billion dollar industries and NVIDIA cards selling out.
“Too expensive” means "beyond what the market will bear. Objectively, the Switch 2 didn’t cost enough — there was some other higher price that would have given Nintendo numbers such that while it might not have sold quite as well, what it would have sold would have made up for it. Would the market bear a $500 Switch 2? Maybe. $600? That, I doubt. $450 was a bit high for my liking, but the market bore it just fine and now it’s thriving.
I think skins and lootboxes are too expensive but they make billions so pointing to financial success doesn’t mean much aside for companies which we are not.
I think switch 2 would sell fine at 500. Bigger issue for me is them wanting to raise the price of games, but that is once again different from me not willing to buy it at the price and me making claims about if it will sell.
Product sales and whether you think the product is a price you are fine with are very different things. People are usually talking about their perception of price than a market prediction.
I have a console. The games I bought (on sale or no) in reverse order are:
expedition 33 (31?)
It Takes Two
Baldur’s Gate
CP2077 (discount)
No man’s Sky (discount)
Days Gone (discount)
Diablo IV
Jedi: Outcast
Horizon: Forbidden West
And it came with the latest(?) god of war, but I’ve never played it.
So if you’re talking about AAA brand new games, my average is under 2 per year. But I have so many hours logged between BG, DG, and NMS it’s ridiculous.
I definitely buy more than 2 games per year, but the types of games I buy and the maximum price I’m willing to pay has changed. Almost everything I buy now is from indie devs, and I’m very selective of the larger studio games I’ll buy (right now, for example, I’m cranking through Alan Wake 2 after replaying the first one).
In Sony’s defense, this actually seems like a case of copyright working as intended. Tencent basically started creating a Horizon game before getting approval from Sony, then they asked Sony and Sony said no, so they just went ahead and made it anyway, but they did the bare minimum to obscure that the game used to be a Horizon project. If Sony can prove that these facts are true, they definitely have a case. On the other hand, Tencent may have a point when they say that Horizon is in itself a derivative concept, so it’s a bit silly to accuse anyone of ripping off a franchise that is not particularly original.
totally fair. However, I think there’s a case to be made for it, at least so long as we have to live under capitalism. If an individual artist comes up with a unique character that becomes popular, that character is an important piece of that artist’s livelihood. Ripoffs and clones would eat into the artist’s livelihood, and now the artist doesn’t have enough money to live on the earnings from their art alone. They have to go get a soul-sucking job to make ends meet. Should we not be protecting that artist’s livelihood from copycats that would seek to profit from the artist’s creativity without paying the artist for that right? Should we not be doing everything we can to ensure that artists can live off their artwork alone, if they are talented enough?
My neighbor spent 3 years recording an album, but I have a larger online following, so I just took it and put my name on it and now I’m making $10 per sale.
I continue to not buy Nintendo devices or software because of their continuing nonsensical litigation like this. Whatever value they think they lost because of these chips I say compare that to their continued tarnishing of their name.
If your drm can be altered with a chip some guy made in his garage then it’s your drm that’s at fault. Financially ruining the guy only hurts the Nintendo brand.
I also do not buy Nintendo products for the same reason, but I think you overestimate the general public’s knowledge of their crazy litigant aggressiveness.
Ask any 12 year old what they want for Xmas and it’s a Switch 2, which means that parents are going to keep buying them for their kids, and it’s a massive pain to tell your kid that you’re not going to buy them their desired toy because the company that makes it is a scourge of hostile control freaks.
Most people just don’t care. So, keep up the fight because it matters but Nintendo’s brand image is mostly family safe game consoles, Mario, etc. despite what the very small subset of the world that is on Lemmy thinks.
I’m aware, we aren’t going to make a massive dent. However, for this 2 million dollar settlement, how many people would need to be swayed to not buy a switch 2 to make the settlement more expensive? In other words, how many sales would need to be lost because of us not buying the console to make the settlement moot?
In the case of 2 million, that’s about 4,500 switch 2s, not counting the loss in games bought or accessories.
If just 4500 people were convinced not to buy one because of this settlement, then the cost to their brand being tarnished is worse than the loss of potential sales due to the chip.
There’s a dozen other factors too, legal costs, what drives these potential sales, etc. what I’m trying to say is that if they’re willing to be this litigious over a few thousand console sales, then that means that even small groups like us not buying consoles can actually be noticed. It may be a simple dip in sales on a chart, but they’ll notice. To a greedy corporation willing to go after a single guy in a garage, they’ll notice a couple thousand people not buying consoles.
Yeah you’re the parent you can just say no. It’s this what parenting is like nowadays? When I still had a kid, we wouldn’t even feed him dinner cause we couldn’t afford it. It can whine all night long but as a parent no means no. We should bring back the rod as they say spare the rod, spoil the child.
Nope, not going to argue against obviously dumb points from executives. Do it. Raise your prices yearly. Fuck it, you think prices need to increase? Increase them.
It takes me five clicks to close Steam, open Firefox, open my favorite piracy site and download your game. Raise the fucking price, test how much I value my money versus five clicks.
Well if they’re gonna charge those prices, they’re probably gonna opt for Denuvo and then we can’t pirate it. But if enough of them do it, then we might see a concerted effort into breaking denuvo
I find this interesting. Do you take this tack with ALL games? Do you play on anything besides Switch? Personally, I am mostly digital with all of my game purchases these days. I understand the desire to feel like the publisher can’t take the game away from you, but I also feel like it’s a bit pointless these days given how many games need Day 1 patches to run properly. Physical games end up just being a physical license to download the digital game. In this light, I tend to prefer the convenience of digital. I don’t have to swap out cartridges, and I don’t have to worry about storing a physical item.
Yeah, but physical cartridges can be sold or given away to others if you no longer want the game or didn’t like it. You can make eternal backups with tools and help others, as we know that media doesn’t last forever. You OWN the game. I have a couple digital games, but my family has box upon box of physical games. It’s the fact that if you ever get these consoles later in life, you’ll never be able to play the game because support will be cut for your console. So if a game is digital/keycard only, it’s lifespan is only as long as the support. As someone who has been playing several of my mom’s old PS1-3 and GC games, I’d be devastated if I could never play those old games due to bullshit like the keycards.
And if game companies can’t make a game without any major bugs on day 1, then maybe they should take more time to make a quality game. Minor bugs are fine, but something game breaking shouldn’t be brushed off and treated like a standard.
I’m already upset thinking about games we bought in the past that we might’ve not realized won’t work without Internet. This shouldn’t become a norm.
Old PlayStation and Nintendo consoles specifically taught me to not care about physical games though, because it is incredibly easy to softmod them and still play anything you like, even after you can’t buy the games anymore…
videogameschronicle.com
Ważne