RoomWithaMoose

I do think the hoopla over $80 genes is excessive. It's just, the solution is so simple: if you think $80 is too much for a game, don't buy it. Wait for a sale, buy indie, buy older games that have significantly devalued. It's incredibly easy to game without having to buy $80, $70, or even $60 games. So just do that.

You don't need to try starting an online revolution that neither publishers nor general audiences give a s*** about. Gaming isn't, nor has it ever been, about accessibility. It's always been a luxury, and no one's entitled to it. Publishers aren't greedy for reconsidering MSRP, and consumers aren't stupid for enabling them. If you personally don't like the $80 price, don't buy at that price. If you personally don't like microtransactions, don't pay for them.

I will concede there's a point where it gets predatory — mostly with faux-gambling and FOMO MTX. And it's sensible to condemn any instances where a publisher isn't being upfront about pricing or is taking advantage of addictive personalities. But $80 is absolutely not that. It's an upfront exchange that either you're okay with or you're not. And if you're not, then just move along.

Literally just waiting for PS2 Ratchets, God of Wars, ICO, and native PS3 releases.

Any month without any of those is a disappointment for me.

@twitchtvpat Well, the suggestion of buying a Switch, mid-PC, and subscribing to GamePass — all in addition to the presumable PS5 readers would own — kinda already assumes they have a job and disposable income.

I don't really think I would advise having GamePass AND any PS+ tier higher than Standard — if even that. They're mostly redundant, and anyone with a job probably doesn't have the time to get their money's worth out of both services. I'm just suggesting ways to optimize one's gaming reach.

Yeah, I don't really see why anyone is subbed to Extra or Premium when GamePass is just better. It's not just about the library, but the features. GamePass Day One, GamePass on PC, "Everything is a Xbox" (everyone mocked it, but it's actually pretty cool a sub let's you game with only a phone/tablet/tv), and the ongoing rollout of 'stream what you own.'

I wouldn't really say Standard is that great of a deal either since they increased the price, but it's required for online play, so I wouldn't question the consumer's decision making there. Otherwise, if you have the Internet to stream, just get GamePass and buy whatever you wanna play on PlayStation.

And instead of considering buying a PSPortal, buy a Switch — maybe even a Switch Lite. Instead of the PS5 Pro, get a mid-range PC. And there you go, mostly every game is available to you. All you had to do was break a little out of the PlayStation ecosystem.

@PlatinumMikey I always thought V had a pretty bad story. The writing was good (as in, good dialogue, good characters, good concepts), but the plot itself was mostly nothing notable happening for 20 hours before an abrupt, anticlimactic ending.

IV has a beautiful story. San Andreas and Vice City pretty cliched, but fun. V was just, like, 'okay...'

Feel like I'm one of the only gamers not too big on R* anymore. So the release of GTA6 is pretty irrelevant to me. I'll check it out at some point, ya know, but I don't really care when that point will be.

Sooo... Did all the naysayers reside themselves to silence, or did they already move on to the next big thing to hate before seeing these sales results...?

I mean, one would hope, right? I get that it's a bit surprising given the publisher, but they already set this as the precedent. So, one would hope the newer $700 console runs games better than the other 4 year old (?) one.

I'm a Switch fan (little premature to say Switch 2 fan, no?), and I'm fine with that comparison. I doubt it's that accurate; computational power is more complex than "which PlayStation does it run at."

But it's still fair and simple to say "outputs about at the same level as the PS4." Which I think was exactly what DF said, context and all. Dunno why Nintendo fans that have tolerated the Switch this whole time would mind that. Dunno why PlayStation fans would be surprised to learn a portable system that costs $450 would be at that level.

@DonkeyFantasy Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

@HonestHick Listen, I can talk all day about the misinformation surrounding Biden's administration. He did plenty of non-liberal things for American industry conservatives never give him credit for (lotta off-shore drilling, for instance). But that's really, REALLY off-topic, so I'm not going more into it.

I'm not saying this is the direct result of the tariffs. Any incoming price increases in the US are ABSOLUTELY the fault of the tariffs, but not everything, everywhere. And I'm certain a lot of companies will see them as an opportunity to cut corners and raise costs. Still the fault of the tariffs, though; maybe there should have been some regulation to keep companies from taking advantage of the situation — that would've made sense.

We've basically had this conversation before, and I'm mostly gonna conclude it in the same place: be very wary of the politician that promises you the world. How realistic is it that these tariffs — that have tanked investments, escalated tensions with every country, and invited ACTUALLY-RECIPROCAL tariffs from China — will bring back manufacturing, foster better trade for America, eliminate income taxes, and eventually lower prices (somehow...)? It's a tale as old as time: politician over promises and under delivers.

EDIT: Also, I still suggest watching Some More News to get a better idea of the criticisms facing the Administration. They claim to be F'd and B'd.

@HonestHick Lots of 'considerations' and auto manufacturers (makes sense, given America already has an auto manufacturing presence).

All I know is I've seen zero job growth in my area. The factories aren't anywhere yet. Most every company is preparing to lose profits or raise prices. And we pissed off Canada. I don't feel like we're winning at all, and few trends are implying otherwise.

@HonestHick I thought the goal was American manufacturing? Why are we negotiating with foreign countries, then? Shouldn't we be negotiating with global corporations to build factories in America?

Wouldn't negotiating "fairer" trade with other nations discourage corporations from changing anything about their supply chain?

@HonestHick If the goal was establishing American manufacturing, pausing the tariffs seems pretty counterproductive, no?

@guntam It can be both, is what I'm getting at. They can be a money-driven corporation — because they all are — but simultaneously can increase prices because of the direct affect of...let's say economic struggles on their bottom line.

I don't want it to sound like I'm saying global conglomerates are the victims here — I absolutely would never victimize them. And I'm not going to make any excuses for layoffs, nor am I going to say it's more ethical for the consumer to pay the difference. I'm just trying to say, you can't trivialize every anti-consumer move as 'company evil.' Sometimes, it can really be as simple as it suddenly costs the company more to make a product, forcing them to increase the price of that product. I don't think that's any less sensible than them deciding on a MSRP to begin with.

@dskatter Despite my very cynical views of the current state of the global economy, I think it's fairly reasonable to expect things to work out in a neutral manner. That is, after all, what every world leader supposedly wants.

Now, will it be any better than it was a month ago for anybody? Probably not. It'll just be all the same deals with a heaping helping of tacit hostility tacked on. But will any of this affect the average consumer much? Nah, unless a few key players decide to be needlessly stubborn for the foreseeable future.

@HonestHick Without going too far into politics, I'm just gonna say that, if the concern was actually other countries' opposing tariffs, they wouldn't have based Liberation Day's sweeping tariffs on trade deficits. And if the problem was actually trade deficits, they could've tackled them way more directly and effectively instead of just imposing indiscriminate tariffs.

@dskatter True. I'm sure keeping the American market uncompromised is of upmost importance to Sony. But if these tariffs don't, uhh, "work themselves out" soon, I can't see there not being a price hike.

@CielloArc But, like, what is he trying to do exactly? 'Cause I recall running a campaign on the promise of eliminating income taxes and bringing in American manufacturing. Now he's on about how unfair international trade is for the United States — ignoring that the United States has basically been in control of international trade since WWII. Now him and his administration consistently brag about making traction on all fronts, even though tariff chaos isn't really necessary for reworking supposedly unfair trade deals and pausing the tariffs actively undermines both using tariff income to pay American taxes and encouraging companies to bring manufacturing back.

To me, it mostly seems like flailing about like an arse while making enough contradicting promises so that — no matter the outcome — you can convince your constituents it was according to plan all along.

@dskatter I'm sure an increase in the States is incoming. But, like Nintendo being mum with the Switch 2, Sony is waiting for any sign of stability or certainty before deciding on a specific amount.

@guntam I mean, yes — absolutely. I've been saying that exact thing for months: the tariffs are an excuse for all companies to cut corners and charge more.

But, at the same time, if it suddenly costs Sony 20% more to get a PS5 on a store shelf, can they really be blamed for raising prices? It's not like they magically aren't being affected by tariffs; are they just supposed to take the brunt of it?

When if comes to manufacturing, I think the tariffs are absolutely a valid reason to increase prices. Now, are the trade wars even affecting these specific markets? That's my question. But if they are, I can't fault these corporations too much. Still anti-consumer, but not vagrantly greedy.

Sony must've read that article about being less anti-consumer than Nintendo, and got offended.

I'm guessing they're waiting on the White House to see if they should change the price in the States. Also guessing $80 Ghosts of Yotei is in the cards...

@Rich33 I don't think any of your concerns are unwarranted, and it's hard to really predict anything with the abrupt, daily changes. You better bet your bottom dollar Nintendo, Sony, and basically every corporation are looking at these tariffs from every angle, and are just as confused and uncertain as the rest of us.

Looking at the Switch 2 pre-order delay specifically, I'm sure part of it is letting the tariffs play out a bit. The big questions for them are, "how many consoles can we stockpile?" and, "do we need to change the price?" And even to your point about lobbying, Nintendo could indirectly affect things by just announcing a price increase — even as a bluff — and being VERY explicit about it being due to the tariffs, expecting the public outcry to force the White House's hand.

Which, I guess, is all to say even with the very directly affected Nintendo and Switch 2, there are a lot of options. And Nintendo absolutely will do everything in their power to release a competitively priced and successful console in a market as big as the US. I'm sure there's even internal discussions about selling the console at a loss, just to ensure pricing doesn't kill momentum. I don't think these tariffs have the seismic power to uproot these major entertainment companies. They will hurt their bottom line, but won't destroy the business.

@Rich33 I wouldn't say these preservation concerns have much to do with the ostensible ineptitude of US tariffs. What you're suggesting calls for the tariffs to be so destructive for gaming consoles, that PlayStation and/or Nintendo COMPLETELY pull out of the US market.

A few things there: this site isn't centralized in the US, so that hypothetical is mostly irrelevant to them. While the tariffs are sure to make business more challenging for console manufacturers, they are unlikely to pull out of one of the biggest markets in the industry; they're already doing what they can to circumvent them (such as stockpiling imports while the tariffs are off, and moving manufacturing out of China [too bad the US indiscriminately tariffed everyone...]), and can always assume the tariffs won't outlast the current administration — if they even last that long. And even if they pulled their hardware out of the market, there's little to no reason they would pull their digital ecosystems — or even their physical games.

Expect higher prices, lower sales, and possible demographic re-evaluation (maybe it's time to get God of War with Chinese mythology...). But I wouldn't expect any major shake ups in the industry besides that. Certainly nothing to the extent we should worry about game preservation. After all, a console generation lasts longer than a US presidential term; this is a small hurdle for manufacturers.

I'm still hoping there will be something about the game that catches my eye. But I'm not holding my breath.

It was always an uphill battle to captivate a gamer like myself. I think if there's anything to conclude from the small sample from this site, it's that they've probably failed to do so. But maybe it'll be big with the crowds that like these types of games. But I'm not too confident of that, either.

@ATaco Eh. The topic at hand is mostly binary; there's not much room for extremes or centrism, it's really just either you think it's morally just or reprehensible. So I don't really agree with that assessment.

Unless you're saying the commenters themselves are extreme. But there's not really enough to go off to conclude that.

...Just seems like one of those comments trying to be reductive of people having actual opinions about stuff, while claiming moral superiority because they don't feel the need to argue about things. Which is a whole lot of nothing, in my eyes. Feels like the same goal would've been achieved without sounding smug and limply agnostic by just saying a Marathon comment section isn't an appropriate place for this argument.

@ED_209 I don't really know who was actively against the idea of Sony making multiplayer games, but conceded that it'd be okay if they bought developers specifically to do it. I know longtime Bungie fans have been waiting for them to return to single-player titles since the first Destiny...so there's that.

@Nepp67 Like Doom, but slower and more horror-focused. If you have Steam, I think they're all on there for free.

Then it won't last long. I don't think Sony appreciates how lucky Helldivers II was going viral. Nor do I think they understand how well snippets of Helldivers II gameplay sold the game.

This won't be a Concord level failure (at least the art style is striking and it's a more topical genre), but it won't set the world on fire.

@Nepp67 I think it looks pretty good. But it's missing all the aesthetic charm of OG Marathon. That's not to say it's worse — in my opinion, at least. But when they first announced this, I imagined a modern shooter with a retro sci fi horror vibe, very alike the recent System Shock remake. Instead we got some bold, vibrant sci fi colors. Still nice, but not at all what I was hoping for

@dskatter Also, my man's over here with an Evangelion profile pic. If that doesn't say 90s alt-cul computer gamer, I don't know what does.

@ChrisDeku I wouldn't say that undermines their thoughts, even if they haven't. I've never played PaRappa, but am still aware of the series, am fond of it, and would be interested in a new entry.

But then, at the same time, what's so hard to believe about someone expressing interest in Marathon having actually played Marathon? Plenty of modern gamers were playing computer games in the 90s, one entry was released on Xbox Live Arcade, and I think the whole series was recently released for free on Steam. That's plenty opportunity for someone to have played it.

Really trying to muster up enthusiasm — I like Bungie, I like Marathon, I like the art direction — but it just looks like another generic online shooter. I'm just not seeing anything about it that stands out. I'm not big on Helldivers II, but gameplay of it looks infinitely more interesting. I don't care much about From Software, but am way more interested in seeing more of The Duskblood than this.

I'm not ready to call this a failure. But all the people citing Bungie's pedigree or Destiny's fanbase are really underselling the struggles this game is going to face. The hardcore gaming public doesn't care much about Bungie anymore, and the general audience that plays Destiny would probably rather keep playing Destiny (or play another game from another developer that scratches that itch, as it seems they're actually the MOST critical of Bungie). If this game's not f2p, I don't see it getting any momentum in the first place.

@AhmadSumadi @Hapless Having played a good 6 hours of the game, it absolutely would not make sense in 3rd-person. Environments and corridors are narrow, Indy's movements are stiff and restrained, enemy telegraphing is meant for an up close viewpoint, there are puzzles that involve looking at environmental details, menus are diegetic in a way that would feel clumsy in 3rd-person.

You would really have to make a completely different game if it were 3rd-person. Which is maybe what you guys are advocating for — I dunno.

@Flaming_Kaiser Literally in the URL you posted: "Nintendo confirms SOME Switch 2 game carts..."

I never denied it was a thing that exists. But it's not every game, and will probably be a small minority.

@hi_drnick I have a sneaking suspicion yous twos are talking about different games.

@opo02 Tears of the Kingdom is in a unique spot where it was originally $70, and its S2 upgrade costs $10. So technically, yes, you could say the S2 version of the game costs $80. But that would be a little disingenuous. It's a $70 Switch game with a $10 next-gen upgrade. Breath of the Wild is the exact same circumstance, but costs $70.

And, hey, you can still be upset about that (maybe BotW shouldn't still cost $60, or these upgrades should be free). But I wouldn't look at any of the Switch 2 Edition games to set a precedent for Switch 2 exclusive pricing.

EDIT: My advice to anyone thinking about a Switch 2 and S2 Edition games is to use NSO Game Vouchers to purchase any of them. I've gotten almost every 1st-party Nintendo game for $50 max for years now. And am looking at a fairly palatable $60 for TotK Switch 2 Edition (ignoring that I'm actually going to get access to it for free using NSO — 'cause daddy wants those GameCube games).

@johnedwin That's true. Although it's worth noting that the majority of games remain available to download (even after being delisted) until a digital storefront's closure.

But yes, there will be no resale option after the presumable 15-30 years the Switch/Switch2 eShops remain open. And if that irks you, just avoid these key cards and only buy physical carts if they contain the actual game (which I'd assume at least 90% of them will).

I still await Oswald DLC.

@nomither6 I wouldn't say they're "reprieved from any scrutiny." Just...read anything Nintendo related on the internet right now.

Maybe, at most, you can say they have the most fervent, defensive fanbase. But, I mean, most entertainment companies have fervent, defensive fanbases. I guess you could say their double-standard translates to grandiose sales regardless of anti-consumer policies. But that ignores when the market has ignored Nintendo's efforts (3DS launch, Wii U — unless we're asserting they were pro-consumer those times), as well as how successful a company like Playstation is in spite of their own anti-consumer practices.

@Flaming_Kaiser During the Direct, Nintendo talked about how their new cartridges have much faster read speeds than those of the Switch 1. And CD Project Red has said the Switch 2 cartridges can hold up to 64gbs.

Which is to say: There are definitely, undoubtedly Switch 2 carts that contain game data. This whole thing about game keys is really overblown. And while you can still be upset about it, it's really not much different from the download code physical releases that have existed and will probably be just as common — i.e. not common at all.

Also not too sure it would kill resales. I don't think the key is tied to the console. It's literally a portable license, which you could theoretically exchange.

Considering NIntendo clearly plans to support the Switch for at least another 2 years...ish, I wouldn't really say it's out-of-touch to advise gamers that can't afford the Switch 2 could buy the Switch. Even that paraphrased subtitle most reminds me of the X1 DRM backlash — the comment in that case being, and I'm paraphrasing, 'don't like the always-online stuff? Buy an older console.' Which came off as far more egregious than responding to concerns over price.

I think it's hard to make the case the Nintendo Switch 2 is over priced. It's much easier to make the argument the Nintendo Switch is over priced, but that's not what people are complaining about right now. If you wanna question the price of games — sure. Is it an egregious sign of arrogance? Maybe. But, then again, we only have 1 $80 game right now, and I don't think it out of the question to see $70 be the standard for Switch 2 exclusives and $60 to remain the standard for cross-generational titles. Which isn't too different from what Xbox and Playstation have been doing for a few years now. In fact, $80 Mario Kart is really the only notably worse thing they're doing when compared to their...competitors (?).

I wonder if anyone is going to attempt to be reductive of these stats too...

@Dragoon1994 It does seem like that's an option they're offering partners. I haven't really looked into all the details — because I'm already all digital, hence it doesn't really affect me.

It should really just be a replacement to the 'physical game that's just a download code' on the Switch. So I wouldn't expect it often. And I would never expect Nintendo's games to utilize it.

@Dragoon1994 Presumably 95% of physical games on the Switch 2 are going to be fully contained on the cartridge. The idea that every physical game is just a download with a cartridge key is a bit of misinformation.

CD Project Red has stated that Switch 2 cartridges have a 64gb capacity. So, presumably, the game key will be for 3rd-parties that can't fit their game into that cartridge. Nintendo's games are looking to be 10-30gb so far, so it won't be a problem for them.

I would doubt this game's gonna be ported. Unless it's a failure on Switch 2 and From approaches Nintendo for their blessing. If it sells well, though, it's successor certainly could. Or Nintendo could snatch that up, too.

Regardless, can't help but feel this game is being treated unfairly. I'm not even going to say it's PlayStation bias; From fans' ostensibly ardent reluctance to even hear out what From has to offer is a tad baffling. Especially seeing it compared to Fortnite and called live-service when all we have to work off is 4v4vE and online-focused. Multiplayer isn't inherently live-service (depending on your definition. But if we're calling this LS, then every multiplayer game is LS, and suddenly LS doesn't even have negative connotations). And 4v4vE is very much not a battle royale. So this isn't Fortnite. In any sense.

Completely fine if a From fan isn't too interested in a From game without single-player. But if you generally like their combat, level design, art direction, enemy design, and playing their games with friends (still know a lot of people clamored for Elden Ring, etc. to have full coop), then — you know — maybe see what this multiplayer game with From-styled combat, level design, art direction, and enemy design has to offer before dismissing it.

@Member_the_game Almost everyone has begrudgingly accepted $70 games already. Everyone will accept $80 in 2 years time.

I'm not saying we should. But it'll happen. Let's just hope no one pushes it to $90-100...

@LifeGirl Depends on the game, though. While I've tended to avoid $70 releases, the few times I indulged (HFW, Rift Apart, and TotK) I didn't feel ripped off. I didn't feel good about it, but I wasn't cheated.

@Nightcrawler71 It works in Zelda for two reasons:

• There's a constant abundance of weapons.
• You're strongly encouraged to change your strategies fight to fight.

Typically, I assume people that didn't like it have an anxiety about letting things go/using things and/or approached every encounter sword-first.

Always depends on implementation. I like weapon durability in Monster Hunter and BotW/TotK. But it's usually just annoying if I have to keep going into a menu and repairing suddenly useless weapons with one-time use collectables.