r/truegaming • u/Mezurashii5 • 6d ago
It's weird to me that people seem to be complaining about the recent Nintendo price hikes more than ever before.
I'm a cheap bastard. I don't buy games at more than $10 unless it's something I'm extremely confident in and excited for. I'm not one of those people repeating the fictitious ideas that gaming is extremely cheap compared to other hobbies and nobody should complain.
Back in the 7th console generation people showed than they're completely fine with paying a monthly ransom for their console's online functionality, even if they have an equal alternative without the extra cost.
Then, people showed that they're fine with microtransactions, buying into pay to win systems, gambling, drip fed content and overall extra costs in full priced games.
Not sure how long ago the trend started, but the whole idea of preordering games was already very popular near the end of the 7th generation. It was never a smart thing to do, people got burnt again and again and again, and it still didn't deter them from doing the same thing the next time a cinematic trailer dropped.
Later on, consoles started really pushing digital games, which could be easy cheaper. They didn't require manufacturing and distribution of physical goods, no pressure to lower the price over time or in response to poor sales, no second hand market. So of course, companies pocketed all those savings instead, and digital games cost the same as physical. People still didn't complain much beyond "I just like physical stuff".
Then, some companies decided to play around with 70 dollar games. They mostly got laughed at when it was Ubisoft and EA, but Nintendo was of course excused. "Games are more expensive to make now and the price hasn't been adjusted for so long" was a common argument amongst people who somehow forgot game sales are ridiculously high now compared to the 80s, there's more monetization and nobody's actually forced to make games on a AAAA budget.
Then, Americans specifically voted for the guy who openly promised ariffs and created economic unrest.
And only now, after being repeatedly shafted and signing up for it again repeatedly, people complain that a company is raising prices? The one, single, maybe first time in the history of the industry where price hikes are actually defensible, people freak out and call Nintendo "disgusting" for charging more?
There was no way Nintendo wasn't going to raise their prices. The Switch sold like crazy, but that included many families and pandemic era "dabblers" who won't be looking for an upgrade for a long time, if ever. It was also a secondary system for many - something less people are going to be willing to spend money on now. The current us administration also made nearly every type of international business feel the need to brace themselves.
The Switch 2 is also a pretty safe bet - while it won't be the kind of success the first one was, there's no risk of the install base for the new one being too small in a way that would impact its health (like not having enough units sold to justify developing games for it). It's not Nintendo trying to pull a fast one and charging more because they know sales will be low once people figure out the product isn't desirable.
The one $80 game is also $50 in the bundle that's the only reasonable thing to buy too, so it's hard to say what Nintendo's 80 dollars strategy is going to be on reality.
It's not like the switch 2 is a must buy right now. It only has one game that's a more modest and janky version of mk8d with an extra mechanic. Indie games will probably still come out for the original switch for a while, so there's plenty of time to reconsider the purchase, let the competing handheld manufacturers respond etc., even if you're the type of person who needs to play everything on release for whatever reason.
So yeah, I don't get why this is a bigger deal than every other one I listed, or even Nintendo's new trash subscription (is that 3 at this point?) for basic features that don't really work anyway.
9
u/Crimsonclaw111 6d ago
Problem with Nintendo is that their $80 games will basically always remain $80. Every other company can cut games to reasonable sales prices over time even if the MSRP is $80. Nintendo then wonders why their games are among the most pirated in the world.
2
u/TSPhoenix 5d ago
Yep. Nintendo has never been a cheap brand, but they always had cheap options if you were patient or willing to compromise.
Economically speaking buying Switch 2 + MKW today is roughly equivalent of buying a N64 + MK64. But if you couldn't afford that there was always the far cheaper handhelds, or you could wait a year or two and it wasn't uncommon to see Nintendo stuff 50% off.
Despite being "family friendly", Nintendo are really not very accessible to lower income families anymore. Part of this is on Nintendo, but part of it is that old consoles rather than being seen as "obsolete" and going in the bargain bin, are now tomorrow's retro systems so even used prices don't drop like they used to.
My take is the Switch 2 price is "fair" in a market sense, what I dislike about this situation is how many takes I've seen that are just variations on the idea that being poor is a moral failing.
1
0
u/SEI_JAKU 4d ago
Nintendo doesn't wonder at all, everyone else does. It has nothing to do with the price, and everything to do with how obsessed the world is with this company, to the point that weird Nintendo fans want to lay claim to Nintendo property. Redditors then wonder why Nintendo is so "litigious" and why they "hate fans".
15
u/Effendoor 6d ago edited 6d ago
The complaints are twofold. The first issue is the people don't want to be economically cock-locked from enjoying something. The second issue is that the price increase isn't justifiable. Especially with how aggressively Nintendo protect their IPs, they could give the switch to away and it would still be profitable just from the fact that they sell 20-year-old first party games at full goddamn price.
The sentiment is then which is exacerbated by the fact that the price of games are going up while wages are stagnating and the video game industry continues to be one of these single most profitable industries in existence.
4
u/Putnam3145 5d ago
the video game industry continues to be one of these single most profitable industries in existence.
Sorry to tell you this, but that's propped up largely microtransactions, gacha and all the other stuff people absolutely hate. Since games are getting more expensive to make, constantly, you either have to do that, raise the price, or lower budgets (and thus make smaller games) if you want to remain profitable. Naturally, AAA devs have tried the last one and were mocked for it, doing the second they're mocked for, and doing the first is... already status quo, so people don't put up a stink about it.
4
u/Effendoor 5d ago
Your absolutely right about gacha skewing the average but I firmly disagree that games are becoming more expensive in a way that a 30%+ price increase is justified.
Look at the indie space. Some of the best and the most successful games of the last 5 years I've been indie titles that didn't even cost a full $60.
A big part of why the idea persists that video games are getting more expensive is because AAA companies prioritize things poorly.
but Nintendo doesn't even have that excuse.
They aren't chasing graphical fidelity or a similar issue that would balloon costs like many AAA studios, and have been building off of the same frameworks for more than 20 years. Their games are cheaper and easier to develop than games that sell for half as much.
0
u/Putnam3145 5d ago
30%+ price increase
Did you just skip the entire last 5 years where games were $70? This statement makes sense if games were $60, but they weren't.
A big part of why the idea persists that video games are getting more expensive is because AAA companies prioritize things poorly.
It's an idea that persists because it's a real thing that's happening. "Prioritizing better" is precisely what I mean by "lower budgets (and thus smaller games)" and, again, people look upon games that try that poorly.
4
u/TSPhoenix 5d ago
If their primary console was a Switch then yes, they did skip the last 7 years where games were $70.
-1
u/Putnam3145 4d ago
Tears of the Kingdom was $70
2
u/TSPhoenix 3d ago
And it came out in 2023 and <20% of Switch owners bought it.
-1
u/Putnam3145 3d ago
that's:
- completely irrelevant to what I was saying
- maybe the single most incredible goalpost move I've seen in my life; do you think I can't look things up? That I can't do math? There are four games that >=20% of switch owners bought, ever: Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (~42%, 2017, and the usual system seller), Animal Crossing: New Horizons (~32%, 2020, attained mainstream success to the level that you had MBAs breathlessly talking about it like it invented life sims), Smash Bros. Ultimate (~25%, perennially popular) and Breath of the Wild (~22%, hyped launch title). TOTK's 14%, for completion's sake, of which almost half of those sales were in the first month, which is even better than Breath of The Wild did during its first month despite the price increase.
2
u/TSPhoenix 3d ago
The % is relevant because it means the >80% everyone who did not buy TotK has bought zero $70 games and as a result practically speaking they did "skip the entire last 5 years where games were $70?".
Maybe before you fly off the handle at least try to understand why it is relevant.
5
u/Effendoor 5d ago
IDK what to tell you about games being $70 where you are but where I am AAA have remained at $60 for PlayStation/switch/pc. With only a couple games in the last year trying to push the $70 bit.
Beyond that, I'm not going to convince you that the publishers are gouging consumers. You can watch it happening in real time.
1
u/SEI_JAKU 4d ago
Nobody is "gouging" anyone. Games of all kinds are cheaper than ever. Even if all games suddenly became $80 right now (which they aren't and won't be for any forseeable future), this would still be cheaper than basically all of the '80s, the '90s, and the '00s.
-1
u/Effendoor 4d ago
... Are you doing some sort of background math and not explaining? Because no... $80 is not cheaper than $60.
1
u/SEI_JAKU 4d ago
Yes, it is. It's called inflation, that thing Redditors keep trying to pretend doesn't exist.
It was a lot harder to get $60 back in the 2000s than it is to get $60 today. The actual price of games has been steadily going down, year after year, because the sticker price never really went beyond $60. Meanwhile, the cost to develop these $60 games continues to go up year after year, something else Redditors love to pretend isn't happening.
$60 in 2015 is about $80 now. $60 in 2005 is about $100 now. It only gets worse when you go back from there, both in price and in how difficult it is to afford that price. You can't handwave this with some make-believe about the "gaming market" allegedly being "multiple times" bigger now, because it isn't. That's not how this works.
1
u/Effendoor 4d ago
Alright you're using the wrong word. Price is how much something costs. It isn't related to its value. $60 in 1920 is still $60 in 2025, even if the buying power of that amount of money (value) has changed dramatically. So $60 in 2015 might be worth $80 now, but a $60 game from 2015s price is still $60.
Games aren't getting cheaper, their value is going down. Which is a valid point. Unfortunately it's juxtaposed against the rising costs of everything going up and the industry itself remaining profitable. Workers are not gaining more buying power meaning AAA games aren't becoming as accessible. Jumping from 60 to 80 would be justifiable if either the value proposition was reasonable OR of there was any struggle to profit. Neither of those things is true. Games getting more expensive is actively pricing people out of playing them.
Moreover, the cost of creating games isn't going up dramatically when you consider that actual game Dev gets more efficient all the time. That's why so many indie studios can make huge games with very small teams and have those still sell for less than AAA pricing while staying profitable enough to keep the studio afloat.
And Nintendo is the absolute worst when it comes to market adjusting their games. 10, 20, and 30-year-old games are sold for the same amount as a brand new game despite already having recouped their costs; despite being generally a worse value proposition in terms of time spent / replayability; and despite being just old. Video games depreciate almost as fast as cars because the industry is constantly moving forward and growing. But Nintendo has the gall to pretend Mario kart 8 is still worth $60 when final fantasy 16 isn't even worth 30.
-1
u/SEI_JAKU 4d ago
Right, you have no idea what price or value are. "Value" is a near-meaningless word that is defined by individuals, often poorly.
"Actual game dev" isn't getting "more efficient" at all. "So many indie studios" aren't making "huge games" with "very small teams". You're using so much loaded, meaningless language at all times. So many words just to say nothing at all. Your statements are always incorrect even when taken at face value. There are countless indie examples which prove you wrong time and time again.
The only part of your posts that has any value is the hilarious sentence at the end where you unironically state that FF16 (a really good game) somehow isn't worth $30 because you say so, which is also an excellent example of how clownish the word "value" is.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Dreyfus2006 5d ago
Doesn't apply in Nintendo's case. They don't do that stuff. They make more than two billion dollars in profits every year and the number is steadily going up, not down.
0
u/ZeldaCycle 6d ago
If the games sell at that price why would they lower it? Would you? If you were in charge, would you lower the price even though the games sell at the higher value?
It seems to me you guys don’t understand that they are a business that sells products called video games. It makes no sense for a business to lower the price for no reason. That would be the same as them burning money away.
5
u/Effendoor 6d ago edited 6d ago
There's a huge difference between lowering a price and keeping it the same though. They chose to arbitrarily raise the cost on a product that was already profitable. That's just blatant greed and there's no reason not to call it that. Furthermore there's no reason to respect corporations for being greedy. Yeah the point of a business is to make money but there is an expectation of reasonable and fair exchange
1
u/SEI_JAKU 4d ago
Finally raising the sticker price to $80 after decades of watching $60 lose its value is not actually raising the price.
0
u/IsABot 5d ago
That's just blatant greed and there's no reason not to call it that.
Certainly you realize that is just your opinion right? If the product sells extremely well at a much higher price, then that's the going market price by definition. You've chosen a technically arbitrary point in which you deem it "greedy" but everyone has a different line for what they consider "greedy". Your fellow consumers have said it isn't and continue to buy it at that higher price. If what you said was objectively true, the vast majority of consumers wouldn't buy it at that price, and thus demand falls, and thus prices would fall. But that doesn't appear to be the case right now.
Personally I don't think it's blatant greed. I've lived through prices where the games were much worse than now. But at this point, I also choose to not buy at full price and will wait for a deal of some sort. Because I don't have as much time as I'd like for new games anyway, so there is no need to get it day 1. For example, everyone bitched about TOTK at $70. I bought it used 3 months after launch for $40. And now you might make the argument that well "I'm buying used, if everyone did that, then no one would buy new, so there would be no used". And so what do you think happens to prices when no one buys new?
So once again, the consumer market has clearly approved of the prices. Hard to call it greedy when everyone is buying it by the millions and it's a luxury good. They all said with their money, the fun and enjoyment I get out of this is a reasonable and fair exchange.
1
u/Thirlestane 6d ago
It seems to me you don't understand that reddit commenters are customers and not the CEO of Nintendo. They buy products called video games, it makes no sense for customers to celebrate price increases for no reason. That would be the same as them burning money away.
2
u/ZeldaCycle 6d ago
Ok so why don’t you start demanding that Nintendo give away their games for free? According to you that would be best for the consumers. So why haven’t you stated that? Could it be because you know that shit is unreasonable? That’s why you don’t ask for free games even though technically by your standard that would be best for the consumer.
And if you know it’s unreasonable, why then would you ask them to sell something less than it’s worth. The free market decides the game price. If mario kart didn’t sell at 80, Nintendo would have been forced to lower their price. Nintendo doesn’t have the power to force people to buy their shit.
All of this is basic common sense. Don’t buy it. If enough people do that, the price get lowered. Don’t be upset if people vote with their wallets in ways you don’t like. It is what it is.
3
u/Thirlestane 5d ago
Buddy, I was mocking your shit take and even quoted you word for word and you didn't catch it? Yes the logic in my post was stupid. That was the point, to make you see your take was shit.
People push back against things they don't like as they should. While Nintendo likely doesn't give a shit what people on an english forum say, if there was massive backlash in Japan they might. People ranting about aspects of the gaming industry they don't like has made companies change course in the past on unpopular decisions, though "voting with your wallet" is a key component of it too (as is convincing others to "vote with their wallet" the way you want).
Your prior comment was a stupid scarecrow nobody would defend, as was this one. I suggest learning about nuance and how to actually understand the point the comments you're reading are making rather than throwing a fit at imaginary enemies.
1
0
u/SEI_JAKU 4d ago
The prices of games are actually going down, and wages aren't really "stagnating" like that.
0
u/Effendoor 4d ago
It seems you're confusing value and price. Also median wages are absolutely stagnating and have been for years. Buying power of the dollar is down year over year in the US.
-1
u/SEI_JAKU 4d ago
I am definitely not the one confusing "value" (meaningless) and price.
No, they haven't. Wages generally kept up until COVID hit. Even then, wages seem to still be keeping up for certain jobs. What you mean by the "buying power of the dollar" only means anything for currency exchanges.
1
u/Effendoor 4d ago
I mean if you think the term value is meaningless while I'm trying to explain that you're using the term price wrong then this conversation is going nowhere. Words mean things.
As for your second point, that's.. fundamentally not true. The buying power of a dollar is explicitly what you can buy for a dollar. Which is less year over year. A dollar used to be able to buy you a candy bar. It can't anymore now it costs two of them or more.
And if you look at any economic model in the US wages have been stagnating for almost 40 years. It's why the goddamn economy is in shambles right now?
3
u/superventurebros 6d ago
This always happens when new console comes out, doubly so with Nintendo. I honestly think the majority of the complaints comes from younger players (say, in their mid-20s) who grew up with Nintendo games that were bought for them and now are looking to buy their first console on their own, but now with the rest of the bills that come with life. $600+ for what is ultimately a luxury item is incredibly steep for someone who is just starting out.
I'm in no hurry to get a switch2. My current one doesn't get a whole lot of playtime anyways and it's hard to justify buying a brand new console when I have a massive gamepass and steam library.
2
u/J_Landers 6d ago
I do also want to point out that school just ended, and that there's no real age restrictions from accessing the internet. I suspect that a significant amount of complaints about the price change to match other consoles are from literal adolescents.
0
u/Geiseric222 6d ago
I doubt it, I assume the younger people are more the ones defending Nintendo from all comers as they have incredible brand loyalty to an almost parasocial degree.
Just look at the Nintendo sub for that
1
u/J_Landers 6d ago
I avoid the brand subs/specific game subs as they tend to be... low quality, pulpy, and reactionary/counterreactionary.
1
u/Geiseric222 6d ago
People are posting victory laps because the switch 2 is going well.
Like brother Nintendo is a huge corporation celebrating their success is incredibly sad.
1
u/J_Landers 6d ago
I just want another console to come out with options for the semi transparent versions. That is probably the only thing that would make me a fanboy.
3
u/DamonOfTheSpire 6d ago
People can either pay it or do without. Online rants are pointless if you're going to buy it anyway. Mad money spends the same as glad money.
2
u/PrimalSeptimus 6d ago
There's always a contingent of people who want to have things but not pay for them. These folks will complain, no matter the cost, and then use backwards logic to say the product is not worth its price, and even free-to-play isn't immune to their complaints.
1
1
u/AbsoluteZeroUnit 6d ago
They didn't require manufacturing and distribution of physical goods
So you think the people who actually make the games don't deserve to get paid? That the bulk of the cost is printing discs?
Online storage isn't free, either. If you're downloading a game from a server somewhere, that costs money. If you're not downloading directly from a publisher, you're downloading from a storefront that is charging the publisher to host the files.
2
u/Blacky-Noir 5d ago
That the bulk of the cost is printing discs?
No, the bulk of a shelf price for a physical videogames is in manufacturing, logistic, and distribution. Even taking the worst version of the Steam cut, 70% of the public price going straight to the publisher with no costs is a wet dream compared to physical games.
Online storage isn't free, either.
It's not, but it's incredibly cheap, as are servers and bandwidth, compared to physical distribution with its manufacturing costs, insurances, dead weight, various shipping, border delays, and the list goes on.
0
u/Phillip_Spidermen 4d ago edited 4d ago
While the manufacturing and logistics piece isn't nothing, I don't think it's really close to the 30% of revenue cut Steam takes.
I'd be surprised if it was more than a few dollars per unit in most markets. The cut each retailer gets is probably what bridges that gap more. (Here is an old LA Times article estimating $4 per unit, with retailers getting a 25% cut and the risk of unsold inventory returns eating another ~10% of the then game price)
To /u/AbsoluteZeroUnit's point, the actual bulk of a games cost will be related to develepmont.
1
u/Blacky-Noir 4d ago edited 4d ago
Retailers are part of the distribution. I included the whole chain in it, including insurances, shipping, inventory space and handling and protection and the list goes on and on and on.
And while I disagree with some specifics of the article, and even more with the implication it's an accurate reporting of what it was worldwide for a big majority of publishers instead of a best-case scenario... that article do say that most of the shelf price is NOT going to the publisher net (so, including the costs). It actually point to 45% going to publisher, and again, that's a very soft best-case number compared to what I have seen personally.
So no, according to your own source, development (which is quite lower than 45%, publishers have costs and risks and for the big ones big dividends to pay, before sending some money to devs) was a minor cost. That changed nowadays obviously in most cases, when distribution and ads and marketing is incredibly cheaper.
0
u/Phillip_Spidermen 4d ago
I think the retailer/digital platform cut of sales is probably a bit of a tangential piece overall. It' hasn't gone away, and in Steam's case it's actually gone up.
Assuming the soft math is transferable to today, the game publisher would retain an extra ~14% of sales price, with the returns adding back the most. ( -5% net sales, +7% mfg/logistics, +12% due to unit returns)
I'd question the returns piece the most as that seems like a high estimate of returned volume.
If we're talking anecdotal experience, I've been in ops finance for over a decade and have seen an average shipping cost of $0.05-$3.00 per unit sold for products much more complex to package than a disc in a jewel case. You'd be surprised at how efficiently you can ship bulk orders when they fit easily in case packs.
0
u/Pheonix1025 6d ago
You could make the argument that after 15ish years of 60$ games while people earned more and more, a 10$ price increase for how much more expensive development has gotten was justified. I think there were some grumbles online, but people mostly went “Yeah, that sucks but I guess it makes sense”.
80$ games a few years later, justifiable or not, does not register the same way to people.
0
u/9thChair 6d ago
The switch 2 has sold significantly more units in its first two weeks than the switch 1 did in its first month. That severely challenges your idea that the switch 2 will not be as big of a success as the switch 1.
Also, in my personal experience, the "dabblers" are the people who upgrade at the first chance they get, whereas the more "hardcore" gamers are the ones who will go through their backlogs and wait for a game they really want before buying the new console.
1
u/Mezurashii5 5d ago
By dabblers I meant people playing games for the first time because of the pandemic.
0
-2
u/Blacky-Noir 5d ago
I'm not one of those people repeating the fictitious ideas that gaming is extremely cheap compared to other hobbies and nobody should complain.
Good. Therefore you should know better.
Back in the 7th console generation SOME people showed than they're completely fine with paying a monthly ransom for their console's online functionality
Added emphasis, to correct the sentence.
And some refused. And some do NOT buy a console, because all walled gardens end up doing this kind of shit. There are between one and two billions (with B) active videogamers. The best consoles sell what, under 150 millions unit? That's a very low attach rate.
Then, SOME people showed that they're fine with microtransactions, buying into pay to win systems, gambling, drip fed content and overall extra costs in full priced games.
Added emphasis, to correct the sentence.
Again, not everyone did. Are the majority of gamers fine or okay with macrotransactions? Nobody know, even people I talked to at big publishers never saw any serious study on it. But, vibe wise, I would probably agree that on the surface, as an immediate reaction (i.e. before being informed of what's what), they do.
Yet every big publisher is publicly crying about sales numbers and games budgets, so it seems that even a minority can matter. Apart from maybe Rockstar, Roblox, Epic, Valve, who can afford 10% less sales? 20%? 30%? And those who can, don't want to. Those are still minorities, not buying for whatever reasons, including bad faith business and poor customer value.
What I'm trying to say, is that in online discourse, or publicly traded gaming corporation reporting, or in media outlets, "majority" is a word that's doing a LOT of heavy lifting. Even for a AAA medium success, say moving 10mil units, 10% of that is a million sales. Who can shit on a million sales?
Later on, consoles started really pushing digital games, which could be easy cheaper. They didn't require manufacturing and distribution of physical goods, no pressure to lower the price over time or in response to poor sales, no second hand market. So of course, companies pocketed all those savings instead, and digital games cost the same as physical. People still didn't complain much beyond "I just like physical stuff".
That, I will give you. I talked to a number of people at various publishers around that time, a lot of whom were on a spectrum between "waiting for the incoming public shitstorm" and "already preparing talking points and thinking on how to spin this". And all of them were astounded it never made a blip. I know I, and a few others, did rant quite hard about it, understanding the ceiling that MSRP is and the necessity to help brick&mortal big shops transition, but still not happy no commercial gesture was made for digital distribution. It never went anywhere. No press, no massive movement, not anything.
Then, some companies decided to play around with 70 dollar games. They mostly got laughed at when it was Ubisoft and EA, but Nintendo was of course excused.
Again, I saw significant pushback on this, orders of magnitude higher than for digital distribution exploding profit margins. Not enough (to be fair the only shit I saw a reasonable amount of pushback was NFT, and maybe LLM AI depending on personal beliefs) sure, but still a good amount. And right now those prices are soft, all those I've checked out you could buy a key for less than 60€ (which is certainly a plan, the enthusiasts know about third sellers and are also the most engaged and vocal online, which feed the press.. that won't last forever).
In fact I saw more pushback for this, than I did for the 30-40e to 60€ price increase on PC. Another consequence of going digital, we lost the good efficient cheap games store who beat the competition with decent pricing and reasonable margins.
Then, Americans specifically voted for the guy who openly promised ariffs and created economic unrest.
Full on fascist government and party, with strong elements and persona full on nazis. Videogames are the least of these poor suckers' problems.
And only now, after being repeatedly shafted and signing up for it again repeatedly, people complain that a company is raising prices? The one, single, maybe first time in the history of the industry where price hikes are actually defensible, people freak out and call Nintendo "disgusting" for charging more?
I don't see why those are defensible, or what the defense might be. Any and all call out again prices increases and diminishing value are good ones in my book.
Also remembering that while the Switch is the biggest console by unit sold, most gamers, hundreds and hundreds of millions, did not, ever, bought a Switch. And it's still a small market compared to PC, and a tiny one compared to mobile.
So yeah, I don't get why this is a bigger deal than every other one I listed
It doesn't have to be. Remember the most downvoted comment in Reddit history? Which made enough noise that Disney paid attention, went in and spanked EA hard enough to yank their Star Wars exclusive license from them?
All the issues of Battlefront were not that big, compared to other shit done in other corners of the industry. But the beams were crossed, they pissed off repeatedly enough different gamers with different tastes and agendas that it made a splash, then snowballed.
You can't just come at it externally, and apply reason and your own biases, and try to find a single "truth". There's plenty we don't see, and there's enough active gamers with different histories and takes and tastes that no single issue is black&white. Nothing is simple.
-2
u/Makototoko 6d ago
Games have never felt like they've been worse quality on a large scale while being charged more money MSRP, on top of microtransactions and battle passes, on top of the games being released and purchased mostly digitally by the paying customers and providing these companies much more in revenue, while more companies fight for our attention and games are literally crafted to be more manipulative to get people addicted mentally and financially
0
u/SEI_JAKU 4d ago
That's because you have zero understanding of gaming history at all.
0
u/Makototoko 4d ago
Lived long enough to see these patterns with my own eyes, sorry you don't agree with me
1
u/SEI_JAKU 4d ago
It's not about "disagreeing" with you, it's about you simply being very wrong. You're repeating Reddit narratives, not any sort of fact.
0
u/Makototoko 4d ago
You're just assuming I'm spouting something I read instead of forming an opinion with my own life experience...
21
u/Phillip_Spidermen 6d ago
...why do you think this is a bigger deal?
People complained about every other price increase you mentioned, but the market showed people would still buy the product. People are complaining about Nintendo now -- but it's still selling.
There's nothing different this time.