crispy4000

Nintendo makes creativity look easy when they commit to it. Some of the power-ups seem so obvious to add in hindsight. Many of those badges too. You forget there's been over a dozen 2D Mario games before this.

Literally the first time I've heard these arguments. All the outlets I follow have been shitting on their recent hardware choices. I imagine this is like people sticking up for Switch games getting Denuvo. I'm sure someone out there is saying it. But probably not any voices worth paying attention to, or enough to constitute a "free pass" generally.

I was referring to their recent accessory fumbles like you quoted @Keyser_Soze on. They're certainly not getting a free pass there. But yes, as to what you're referring to now, it's the same sort of logic that you could find in the transition to PS4: "Microsoft charged for online on the 360, Sony needs to do the same to be feature and security competitive." No, they didn't.

For those things? Microsoft doesn't even relate.

Sony's gotten plenty of shit for this though. And Portal. And sending PSVR2 out to die.

It's easy enough to point to the other company doing bad things and turn a blind eye. By far the best example of that was when Sony put up their paywall in the first place: Look at us continuing to do good things for you fellow gamers!* *Online play is no longer free Too many people didn't see through it. I think Sony was being opportunistic. They knew that if Microsoft was going to charge for it and could continue to compete, they could as well. Then Nintendo saw that and decided that they should be charging too, even announcing it coming off the Wii U before the Switch's success was guaranteed. Microsoft broke the ice, but they clearly illustrated in the 360 era that it wouldn't make or break a console to charge for it. So now, they all do. Because why not. Same token, I'm sure Sony's not losing any sleep over charging $80 when Microsoft is charging $60 still (... for now anyways).

My view is that all the console manufacturers should be faulted for their lowest tiers. We’re past the stage of pointing fingers at who did it first, or even who does it worse. They all jumped on board the online multiplayer paywall train. It should come as no surprise that their approach has been to charge whatever they feel they should for it. Should it cost $20 a year? $60? $80? $120? The range we've seen is absurd. On some level, it factors into the pricing of the higher tiers. The only real thing that can stop a hike like Sony's is enough consumer outrage, of the sort that prevented Microsoft going through with their 100% hike to Gold. (Which may or may not be the reason they still offer a $60 annual plan for Core) Otherwise, it’s whatever numbers Sony thinks will best balance their profits and engagement. I doubt Sony’s going to see a substantial enough backlash to a 30%+ hike. For 3 reasons: 1) Subscription services are all hiking prices, rapidly. People expect it. User acquisition phases are ending. 2) PS Extra is still roughly the same cost as “Games Pass Console.” No day one 1st party, but you get to play online. Enthusiasts and console warriors will complain about those differences. Enough people will still pay for it on the market leader’s platform. 3) We’ve seen a 100% price hike fail once before. That’s the upper limit that’s been tested. Like it or not, Sony’s % is an easier pill to swallow by comparison, and less likely to be protested in as big of way. Even from a dollar amount, it's not the highest attempted increase. In short: If there was real competition, there would be more competitive subscription pricing from Sony. Games Pass wouldn’t be cheaper on PC than console. Multiplayer paywalls wouldn’t exist outside of MMO’s. We wouldn’t be expecting Switch 2 to have its own bananas rate hikes for online play. They're all just leveraging their positions from a place of comfort and complacency, and could use a Wii U-like smack to their egos to treat their customers better. Either that or a 4th major player to shake things up.

Clarified to say it was those already subbed to Games Pass. You are right here regardless, I keep forgetting that Microsoft only hiked the monthly subscription rate for Gold/Core. Baffles me that Sony took away the PS+ collection considering the hike here.

On those already subbed to Games Pass. What sense did it make for Sony to charge $100 annually for PS Extra when Live Ultimate would be $205? They're the market leader. Anyone not interested in games older than a gen ago was already being served pretty well by that difference.

It makes sense because someone else decided to charge more. Soon, Nintendo. It's gonna be hilarious if they decide to charge $40 and people here gawk at the percentage uptick.

They'll get away with it and you know it. The old pricing was a relative steal compared to Microsoft's new tiers. They also used the Core collection to justify a 2x increase on XBL Gold. [EDIT: Incorrect, they still offer $60 annually] Inflationary pressures, yeah, that's it.

That's true, but you'd also have to try to get through games in 3-5 days.

That's how I feel, but there's also enough alternatives for cheap ownership today that I'm not so interested in the subscriptions. Back in the day, you'd have to pay your $6 Blockbuster rental fee to play a new release. Games Pass/PS Extra is a way better deal than that. But I'm also patient enough with 99% of the indies and AA games out there to wait for Humble Choice or Epic giveaways. If that faucet ever plugs up, I'd move (begrudgingly) to the subscriptions.

The official MSRPs for the price changes. Microsoft’s takes effect next month. You can get discounts on all if you try hard enough. All said and done, $1 would still be too much.

I don’t think one year access to all 1st party releases is worth $204 annually. The other additions have to be what puts it over the edge. Either that, or you play Games Pass stuff exclusively on PC, or you forgo online play. Microsoft is definitely offering better options in the $120-140 range now, even on console. I’d easily take day one 1st party releases over subscribing to play multiplayer.

So now, to play the games you already bought online: $120 a year on Xbox consoles $80 a year on PlayStation consoles $20 a year on Nintendo platforms $0 a year on Steam Deck $0 a year on PC $0 a year on mobile* (*possibly mtx ridden) We're going to see Nintendo hike next.

Yay competition?

Weaker subscription deals have hit indie publishers, says analyst WWW.GAMESINDUSTRY.BIZ Sign up for the GI Daily here to get the biggest news straight to your inbox Smaller subscription deals and the underpe… Uh oh. Another 'fun' nugget: Hand out little to no money for licensing deals, so they can buy them outright on the cheap.

I'm finally wrapping up exploring most of the sky/land in the bottom right corner of the map. I need to see what that storm cloud is all about. 100%-ing this game for me will probably be doing every cave and all the sky stuff I can. I don't find the depths not fun, but the cosmetic rewards don't excite me. That's one of the benefits of prior Zeldas having heart containers, hidden bottles, etc.

-75% Hero of the Kingdom II on GOG.com WWW.GOG.COM Sail to the farthest islands to save your sister and defeat pirates. You and your si

I'm surprised that it's reviewing better than Chained Echoes. Two high reviewing classic-JRPG games in such a short period of time.

Collecting free games is my hobby if you haven’t noticed. But that’s why I have self imposed rule about finishing anything received here before trying again. With how little gaming time I have these days, it could be a while.

I’m going in relatively blind. Have no idea if it’ll be my jam. But I’m glad I waited for that motion blur slider. Gotta finish Zelda first though. That could take a while.

Some blaze of glory. Would have been nice for him to have marched on further. FF16 is my pick! Thanks.