• Re: Switching to a higher price

    From Dimensional Traveler@21:1/5 to Spalls Hurgenson on Thu Apr 3 07:54:55 2025
    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?

    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?


    --
    I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
    dirty old man.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rin Stowleigh@21:1/5 to dtravel@sonic.net on Thu Apr 3 18:03:58 2025
    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?

    He's not exactly great at idea execution so I don't know if it will
    take hold, but I'd love to see the US become strong in manfucturing
    again. And beyond that, it's kind of dangerous (from a national
    security perspective) to forget how to make your own stuff, and
    offshore it all.

    This is a very different situation than the G.W. Bush "send it all to
    China where itz gud and cheap" shit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimensional Traveler@21:1/5 to Rin Stowleigh on Thu Apr 3 17:35:03 2025
    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.

    --
    I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
    dirty old man.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rin Stowleigh@21:1/5 to dtravel@sonic.net on Thu Apr 3 20:59:27 2025
    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 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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimensional Traveler@21:1/5 to Rin Stowleigh on Fri Apr 4 07:54:42 2025
    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 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.

    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.

    --
    I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
    dirty old man.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rin Stowleigh@21:1/5 to dtravel@sonic.net on Fri Apr 4 19:54:40 2025
    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:
    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. >>
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rin Stowleigh@21:1/5 to jfwaldby@gmail.com on Fri Apr 4 21:10:52 2025
    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 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:
    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.

    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.


    The tariffs are here to stay. They even the playing field. Let's hope
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to Spalls Hurgenson on Wed Apr 9 10:02:33 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to Spalls Hurgenson on Wed Apr 9 10:05:17 2025
    On 03/04/2025 16:26, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
    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.

    Well quite, think of the poor penguins, their export market of tuxedos
    may collapse and then how are they going to afford to buy fish!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to Spalls Hurgenson on Wed Apr 9 21:22:01 2025
    On 09/04/2025 15:54, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
    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.

    Although that's true I do think it misses one part, these are luxury
    items so a lot of it has to do with disposable income not absolute
    income. In the UK at least there's some things that have really put a
    dent in that. Wages flat lining for many years, rising energy costs and
    the biggy ... housing costs. We have lot's of people stuck in the
    unfortunate situation of being unable to get onto the house ladder while
    having to pay stupid rents so falling even further behind. Where I live
    even a room in a shared house will set you back at least £600 and it
    won't even be that nice. If you want to rent a one bedroom flat well
    double that. That's a large part of income out the window.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From candycanearter07@21:1/5 to wipnoah@gmail.com on Wed Apr 9 21:40:04 2025
    H1M3M <wipnoah@gmail.com> wrote at 12:45 this Monday (GMT):
    [snip]
    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.


    Seeing people talking about it on youtube and such, I guess. Also the
    3DS early adopters got GBA games.
    --
    user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From candycanearter07@21:1/5 to Spalls Hurgenson on Mon Apr 14 19:00:05 2025
    Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 17:59 this Sunday (GMT):
    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.


    To be fair, did /anyone/ really play the Wii U version?
    --
    user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Werner P.@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 16 19:12:17 2025
    Am 04.04.25 um 02:59 schrieb Rin Stowleigh:
    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
    The 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
    goods surplus of roughtly 150 billion with the USA to begin with, that
    was the numbers Trump played, however it has a 250 billion minus in
    services so in summary the net income from the EU was to the USA was 100 billion. The USA has become a service heavy country by omitting that you basically lie to your own population!
    Now if you put a rift into this trade you might gain some manufacturing
    but the overall loss will be more but even that is questionable because
    the irrational behavior will cause the USA to be isolated and former
    trading partners will make trading routes around them!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Werner P.@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 16 19:18:27 2025
    Am 09.04.25 um 11:02 schrieb JAB:
    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.
    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
    right that people do not buy as much as they used to. Given the current
    climate it will definitely have a negative impact, but that is on them!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Werner P.@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 16 19:15:31 2025
    Am 05.04.25 um 01:54 schrieb Rin Stowleigh:
    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.
    Nope because it still reels 3 dollars into the usa!
    The market simply cannot afford more hence netflix charges less, it is
    better to get 3 USD than zero, thats a simple math applied by companies!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Werner P.@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 28 10:41:53 2025
    Am 24.07.25 um 18:03 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:

    On a related note:

    Microsoft -like many of the big name publishers- had initially and wholeheartedly decided that if Nintendo could do it, then they too
    could switch to the $80 price point for their games. "Outer Worlds 2"
    (which is scheduled for an October release) was going to be one of the
    games with this new price.

    But -weirdly enough- gamers weren't fully onboard with the price hike,
    and Microsoft has just announced that they're dropping the price to
    $70 "in line with current market conditions". Other "full priced
    holiday releases" will also stick at that lower price.

    The question is if Nintendo can get away with it in the long run. Here
    in Europe Sony did a serious price hike with the PS5 generation which
    did not go fully through in the states for now. But for me it was reason
    enough to finally abandon consoles entirely. I dont even follow Ps5
    gaming news anymore, and the few titles I bought were second hand on
    discm because they usually were 20-30 Euros cheaper even shortly after
    release than their online counterparts in the Sony store!
    So much for online being cheaper because the retailers are cut out of
    the chain, once a monopoly is established they hike prices as they think
    the market can carry! By trying to make discs a hurdle (aka leaving them
    out for certain models or make them an accessory) they tried to nail the monpoly!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Zaghadka@21:1/5 to Spalls Hurgenson on Mon Jul 28 11:29:18 2025
    On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 12:03:03 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
    Spalls Hurgenson wrote:


    On a related note:

    Microsoft -like many of the big name publishers- had initially and >wholeheartedly decided that if Nintendo could do it, then they too
    could switch to the $80 price point for their games. "Outer Worlds 2"
    (which is scheduled for an October release) was going to be one of the
    games with this new price.

    But -weirdly enough- gamers weren't fully onboard with the price hike,
    and Microsoft has just announced that they're dropping the price to
    $70 "in line with current market conditions". Other "full priced
    holiday releases" will also stick at that lower price.

    I mean, Microsoft just fired thousands of employees so it only makes
    sense that their expenses aren't so high anymore, right?

    It's strange that its mostly the triple-A publishers reaching for
    these prices, though. "Clair Obscur: Expedition", for instance,
    launched at a mere $50 despite being considered a triple-a quality
    game and having 'overwhelmingly positive' reviews. And while not as
    beloved, Remedy's own "Firebreak FBC" also managed to release for less
    than $80, despite being a quality game. "Dune: Awakening" and
    "Wandering Village" too came out at a lower price. It's almost as if
    the big-name publishers are jacking up the prices because they can and
    not because the games are worthy of that price. Huh.


    Game pricing is more like arbitrage. There's really no way to assess
    valuation except market conditions and chutzpah.

    Market conditions always determine price point in IP. It's possible a pub
    could make the price point for a game $40, do big volume, and turn a
    decent profit. Or the game might be more niche, and need to be $60 base
    with $300 in DLC, etc.

    Or you just peg it at $70, as AAA has been pegged at $60 for all these
    years, and see if you can get away with $80. Looks like they can't get
    away with $80. If they could get away with $150, they would.

    Point is, any price change occurs just because publishers will it so,
    because that's the only reason to raise prices. If you think there's some valuation formula for IP goods other than "How much money can we make
    from this?" I would advise that you are mistaken.

    Even $/hr of play doesn't work. If I buy a shooter for $60, that comes
    out to about $6/hr for most SP experiences. For multiplayer, it can come
    out to pennies/hr. If I buy BG3 for $60, it definitely comes out to
    pennies. I've got 158 hours in that game and I'm not finished by a long
    shot. 38¢/hr and dropping.

    There is no formula for pubs other than "Can we get away with it." There
    is no formula for us other than "What is my gaming budget?"

    There is no rational justification for *any* price point in IP.

    --
    Pope Zaghadka III

    ````````````````````````````````````````````````````|
    Every man, woman, and child on this Earth |
    is a genuine and authorized Pope. | `````````````````````````````````````````````````````

    As Pope, you are entitled to the following privleges:

    1. To invoke infallibility at any time, even
    retroactively.

    2. To completely rework the structure of the Erisian
    church.

    3. To baptise, bury, and marry (with the permission
    of the deceased in the latter two cases)

    4. To excommunicate yourself and others,
    To de-excommunicate yourself and others,
    To re-excommunicate yourself and others,
    To de-re-excommunicate (no backsies) yourself and
    others.

    5. To perform all rites and functions deemed to be
    improper to a Pope of Discordia.

    Hail Eris!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)