I really hope people do not show up, the 3DS had to get a price cut even though the DS was successful, it can happen again.
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025
329 points (97.4% liked)
Animemes
2171 readers
335 users here now
Memes related to anime. Animemes.
Rules
- Don't be a shithead.
- Posts must be a meme with anime or related to anime or weeb culture.
- Use NSFW tag for lewd/ecchi. No explicit hentai.
- Nothing illegal, copyrighted, etc
- Repost only if the last post is 6 months old.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If you wait a little while, the digital version can usually be found online for around $80 less than retail.
I do love these sites that do giveaways of games a few days before release. I and all my friends won Tears of the Kingdom and were able to finish it unspoiled.
I thought that was only in Europe? 80€ vs 90€
In the US (as the meme implies) and physical and digital copies of MKW are both $79.99, and DK Bananza is $69.99.
Of course that’s not gonna sick thanks to Orange moron
Are they not sold by nintendo US? I mean, they can not tax data sent from nintendo jp to Nintendo US, can they?
I wonder if we'll one day just recycle game ideas so much there will be enough games for a whole lifetime and there are no new good ideas left.
We've had books since ancient Greece and people are still writing new stories.
Plot points, mechanics, and character tropes will get recycled and mixed around, but there's always going to be something "new."
Yes, especially as society changes, books will be written to match that. There are so many good books though :-)
People have said the same thing about music forever. Chess, which is just 16 pieces on an 8x8 board, famously has more possible game sequences than their are atoms in the universe. And modern video games have infinitely more variables than just 16 pieces constrained to 64 tiles.
Well IMO you prove my point with chess, no new "Chess II" has detroned the game, it's one game and for many people it's enough.
Chess is thousands of years old, but many popular variants like Fischer random or blitz are recent developments. Even auto chess is technically inspired by chess and now has millions of active players.
Despite borrowing principles from the original chess (which itself has changed quite a bit since inception) each of these games is substantially different from one another. You can call them recycled ideas, but I would just call it innovation.
Sure, there is that explosive chess and 960 chess and so on, but the game itself still stands. Time controls is not that recent either IIRC it was added when after many hours of thinking, the opponent broke the rule of not distracting the adversary and daringly asked where he was and got the response : "I thought it was your turn!"
But music is stagnated now because everything has been done, ai makes most pop music, and a new "song" is released every minute. We have far surpassed there ever being originality again.
Hopefully people will still want live performance by a human because that is all that's left for the arts. Corpos will destroy it with ai slop that normal people won't be able to differentiate from human creation.
Music has absolutely not stagnated and the only people who say that are people who have a passing interest (or none at all) and no desire to seek out anything beyond a Spotify playlist of tiktok trends.
And just because [insert your favorite genre] isn't topping charts right now, doesn't mean that a) it's gone away, and b) that the music that is popular is bad. And also, just because some of the music that gets popular is less dynamic or complex than others doesn't mean it has nothing to say or has no value.
Honestly, the 'modern music bad' take is just so braindead and it makes me so sad thinking about the people who refuse to allow new music in their life just so they can hold up holier than thou beliefs about the music they grew up with.
It doesn't really have anything to do with old music being better, it's not, I'm just saying with a new song released every minute and billions of people on earth, there is nothing new. Everything sounds like something else, it's inevitable.
Objectively false.
52 cards make more combinations than there are atoms in the universe, you can have data centers filled with random numbers generators and they wouldn't draw the same card twice.
That example uses one dimension, just that single set. with music you have multiple dimensions, even if you get extremely specific, and say that you have 10 chords along 12 root notes (this basically forces you into western music, no diminished chords, just the triads and the sevenths) you have 300 million unique sets of 4 ordered chords (a typical chord progression, that's effectively an entire lifetime of 4 minute songs non stop before you get to something that has been done before.
If you add in time signatures, swing, length, silence, noise, volume, tempo, arrangement, etc, you end up with effectively infinite combinations.
But that doesn't matter anything, because you seem to be assuming that because a component may exist in some form already it means nothing new can be derived from it.
Music speaks to its time and its culture, it tells stories and reflects the emotions of the world it is created in. That world constantly changes. Sampling a sound from an old song can create something new, the story told by the old sound can be different. A derivative work does not a copy cat make and it actually believes it or not is possible to make new music even if the same chord progression exists.
And that doesn't even begin to include the variation in production style, effects, or the biological differences in people's vocal chords.
What makes you think that you are so special that your little 80 year lifetime landed right in the middle of the death of music. And what makes you think new things can't be done, it's only been 50ish years since we've even had a grasp on stuff like synthesizers.
You're forgetting one thing. All those details you mentioned, 99.8% of all humanity does not care or notice any of that. They will listen to AI trash and like it just the same. Also, show me one actually new thing that's been done with synthesizers that I haven't heard before, I'd be surprised if you could. I'm just saying, nothing is original. When recorded music first existed in the later 1800s, it was actually new. I'm not arguing nothing is good anymore, I'm saying nothing is new. There's a difference.
There is a lot of shit mysic today, but there was a lot of shit music in the nineties too!
Go get that nugget!
It all pretty much also depends on the way technology progresses in real time. Better specs will always open up new possibilities, new ideas.
Maybe it would end up like this one day, but only if progress in technology has come to a halt.
So like VR and AI? Maybe you're right.
We already at that point, game ideas just get mixed
Is there even a specific type of game that has every good idea that would fit in already made into a game?
That is probably a terrible idea, like a painting using "all colors".
Not defending it, but n64 games were $80 when they came out. And that was a lot then (probably like the cost of 3 eggs today!)
And things are supposed to get cheaper as technology and processes are improved (and N64 games were large complex cartridges that were expensive to produce).
Yes the quality of games has improved overall, but the market has also grown, meaning things like economy of scale and commodification typically come into play. Additionally the tooling for making games has been dramatically improved, digital art tools are better, game engines are pre packaged with a bow on top and development is (or can be) done in high level memory managed programming languages like c#. It's easier than ever to make good games right now, every aspect of the process has increased with the scope of the games themselves.
So should games stay at $20? Is that sustainable?
Yea, I mean, why not.
what is your argument, if game prices haven't increased over time (as your claim alludes) and yet, in spite of that, the games industry has ballooned, creating the largest media industry in the world, I don't see why prices need to go up.
Video games make money hand over fist, they do it at any price point (vampire survivors sold at least 6 million copies at a dollar, balatro sold at least 3.5 million copies at $15, these games made millions of dollars) what evidence do you have that shows that higher prices are needed to keep the industry afloat?
Maybe the unsustainability lies in the large studios trying to capitalize on brand recognition and loyalty, continuously growing their own costs and spending money on things that don't actually make fun engaging games. Obviously the video game industry would continue to survive and thrive if Nintendo disappeared off of the face of the earth tomorrow, so it's not a video game industry issue.
I agree. Theyndont need to be more than $20
Berzerk came out for the Atari 2600 in 1982 for about $30. That's $98 today. And that didn't take the labor of a movie studio to produce and sell. It was kinda simple.
My lawn. Off of it.
It also required expensive ROM chips and cartridge assembly and came in a full color box with a full color manual.
Digital games don’t come with anything and don’t cost anything to ship.
Not to mention that salaries have absolutely not kept up with inflation so it’s not like that money is going to the developers.
A color box and manual, how... chic. As to salaries, of course you're right, but Atari was paying a couple of dudes vs. several teams creating a modern game.
Anyway, love to see gamers whining about prices as we head into a world where obtaining food is a challenge.
Economy of scale, the market has grown with the scope of games and also, most games do not require a team of hundreds of people to develop.
I covered it in another comment, but game development is easier now than ever, many of gamings greatest hits in the modern era are made by teams of less than 10 full time workers or even completely solo.
The Atari developers didn't have unity and Internet forums, they didn't have managed programming languages, they didn't have asset libraries, they didn't have modern art toolchains and 3d modeling software with high level easy to use features.
Additionally, looking back at old games is looking with biased eyes. The tech was just as cutting edge as it is today, and the learning curve was steeper, it was harder to just get a computer, let alone, learn how to program one. The talent pool was smaller and it was harder to get funding for a game, the higher prices reflected that you were paying for niche software. That isn't the case anymore.
And the argument doesn't even make sense. Should a Blu-ray copy of avengers cost $500 because it cost hundreds of millions to make?
The sales volume was pretty small though, so it's not an apples to apples comparison.
Ubisoft would be pretty happy to sell a game for 1€ if all 8 billion people in the world bought a copy
Yeah, and they sold significantly fewer copies because video games weren't a popular household product at the time; they needed a higher markup to make a reasonable profit. Mario Kart 8 sold nearly 76 million copies. Nintendo made well over a reasonable profit on that game even with a significantly smaller markup, and they would easily continue to do so with the subsequent entry at the same price.
Solid point! But yes, the Atari 2600 was in pretty much every middle-class home at the time. Didn't get mine for years later because my parent's lived the Depression and WWII, didn't see the value in a $100 game. :)
So you're saying economies of scale and population made goods cheaper? That's sounds suspiciously like capitalism.
I can relate with : Me when a game exceed my budget(0$).