"Tariffs are a lose lose for everyone involved."
I mean, they hurt consumers and make the market less efficient, both domestically and internationally. But they benefit specific domestic industries. Why do you think unions in American industries that struggle to compete with their international counterparts support tariffs? Why do you think the UAW supports tariffs now? Why do you think Bernie Sanders campaigned on using tariffs to protect American workers in 2016...
Everyone rails against unbridled capitalism and globalization, then when any government imposes a tax or regulation that affects their consumer habits in the slightest way, they become free trade, free market absolutists.
I mean, they should. It's a digital good that is the same wherever you are buying it. It's not like food or a consumer good where it costs less in relative terms in poorer countries, but it also costs less to bring to market due to the cheaper cost of labor, etc.
So yeah, I don't blame people for taking advantage of it. To me if they MS is selling a digital good for less absolute value, then they are establishing that is what it is worth to them. I'm simply...
I didn't say it wasn't. But if you are selling a digital good for different absolute costs, people are going to take advantage of that, unless the discrepancies are small enough to make it not worth the hassle.
Just make the price pretty close to equal regardless of currency and this problem will go away. If you are charging £65 in the UK (just making that up and using £ because it's one of the most stable currencies), the game should be cost a price that would be roughly equivalent to £65 in the local currency.
Once gamers let the gameplay become secondary to the metagame (the progression system and "earning" the next gun/skin/loot box/perk/attachment/etc), we were always going to end up here. If people won't just play for the gameplay and need a "reason" to play, it naturally follows that devs have to keep coming up with things for them to "earn" when they fill up the next progress bar.
A lot of this seems to come from kids growing up with mobile...
Yep. No skins, no operators, no perks, no progression system, no microtransactions, no seasons. Sad that we'll probably never get anything like that again, except niche PC games. There is a PC game coming called Wraith Ops that is supposedly ditching many of the annoying features of modern gaming, but I think it's still going to have skins and perks, unfortunately.
It all depends on if it's actually a massive step forward or if it just feels like an iterative sequel. There's a lot of revisionist history now about how "mid" Horizon has always been, but people weren't saying that when Zero Dawn came out-people were pretty much universally into it. The major hit against it at the time was that it came out too close to Breath of the Wild.
The problem with Forbidden West is that it took five years and it was just an i...
Yes I'm all for criticizing devs where games launch in a truly broken state, but I don't want to take it to the point of actively discouraging them from seeking to improve games.
That's not entirely true. I see what you are saying; it isn't going to sell many copies there or sell many new GP subscriptions. But if they actually started keeping new games off GP, you better believe they'd lose current subscribers. You have to factor that in too.
Lol I love how you act like you are quoting him but you quoted something he didn't say. Not making another console is not the same as leaving the business as a whole. Given how often you brag about how much money MS is making selling their games places other than Xbox, I'd think you'd know that.
I'd be far more interested to compare Steam Deck sales to specific models of gaming laptops, or even a specific manufacturer's range of laptops. Like a comparison of how Steam Deck sold in 2024 to how well Asus's gaming laptops sold that year.
I don't know why anybody expected Steam Deck to sell like the Switch.
I love the idea that Rivals was somehow innovative. It took a played out genre and combined it with the most played out IP in the world, and people relentlessly flocked to it.
Lol I got down voted everytime I brought it up, and probably will again, but I knew gamers had tanked their collective credibility in lapping up Marvel Rivals the way gamers have. We want to point to the failures of Concord and Suicide Squad and say "see devs/pubs, we don't want more live service slop." And then we fling ourselves at a F2P Hero Shooter based on the most overexposed IP in existence, and expect companies to not react to that. "Only pay attention to the live s...
Hopefully they can target underpowered consoles with CPUs that can't possibly handle that crowd system.
It's crazy how much some people struggle with the concept of annualization. I swear some people on here don't know what it means and just repeat it because they've seen it associated with things like COD and AC.
Pretty sad that the studio that gave us a monumental game like Crysis is now subsisting on microtransactions from a live service PVPVE game.
They definitely look good, but my problem with BF2 2017 is that I never felt like I was in the middle of a large scale war. I always feel like I'm just being funnelled down corridors that happen to have a Star Wars skin.
That's what the original 2004 game got so right. Although it also has tighter, infantry only maps, it also has a number of large open maps with infantry, land vehicle, and air combat all happening simultaneously and affecting one another. BF2 2005 l...
I'll be interested to see how this looks, and props to the modders for putting in the effort, but unless they have fundamentally changed the game, I don't think this will fix the games's problems. Obviously the monetization scandal was the biggest problem, but even putting that aside, the recent Battlefront games lost almost everything special about the 2000s versions, particularly the original. BF 2015 was a little bit better than BF2 2017, which just feels like a Star Wars skin ...
It's always funny when people attempt to vehemently disagree with me and then make a bunch of arguments and cite facts that support my position.
You pointed out that tariffs are hurting the stock market and large corporations. This, of course, is perfectly consistent with my point that tariffs are inefficient domestically and internationally, and that they hurt the end consumer. It seems like you may not understand the different interests between corporations (particul...