The Continued Strain of AI Development on the Console Industry

So this happened....Also, it takes effect April 2, which I found hilarious, because someone had the foresight to not have it happen on April 1. (Disclaimer: I didn't realize the Pro already increased to 750 before, so when I mention a 200 dollar increase, it's when the console was first released at 700.)

You and me both, Bubbles. This... is insane. That's all I can say at this particularly level of mental capacity. This console generation is... fucked. That's all I can say. That's all I can really say... I've been gaming for somewhere around 40 years, and I've never, ever seen a price hike like this... I've never seen a price hike on the cost of a console before this generation, let alone a second one, let alone the second one being this steep!

I remember when I bought my first console with my own money. That was the 8-Bit Nintendo Entertainment System in 1990. I know, I was late, but my parents were adamant that it would get in the way of my schoolwork. So, after I graduated the fifth grade, they decided to let me use money earned on my report card to buy my first system. And, it was 100 dollars. Yeah... a console costing only 100 dollars. Now, the PS5 Pro is going to be 900 dollars, exactly one NES in 1990 short of a rack. Also, Xbox has gone up in price twice already: this generation with the Series X sitting at 650 (600 for an all digital) and the Series S at 400.

So, in my 40 years of gaming, I don't think I've ever seen a video game console hit that number (900). I mean, we had Sony's own PS3, which debuted at 600 dollars for the 60 gig SKU, but they quickly worked on bringing that price down after rough sales. There was the Panasonic 3DO that launched at 700 that never had a chance not just because of the price, but because of the abysmal library. Then there was the Neo Geo at 650, only because it was essentially an arcade board crammed into a console shell. The problem with the Neo Geo, however, was not the price more as it was the price of their games, which averaged more than a couple hundred dollars because of all the RAM used in their cartridges: you were essentially buying encased arcade boards. 

With this outliers out of the way, gaming has for the most part been affordable. In terms of inflation, the average cost of consoles has stayed relatively the same, so one can make the argument that gaming has only become cheaper with everything else being impacted by inflation on a greater scale. Games themselves have also hit 80 dollars but that was Nintendo testing the waters, and Xbox embarrassed themselves badly thinking their consumers were ready to pay 80 dollars for Outer Worlds 2, doing a complete 180 I think it was like a week later. Nintendo has yet to drop another original first-party title at 80, but I wouldn't put it past them to sell the new Zelda or Mario at that price. 

So what's driving up these console price tags? Well, last year, you could blame tariffs. Nintendo delayed their Switch 2 preorders trying to figure out whether or not their prices would be affected by the tariffs, but in February of this year, Congress shut down tariffs on a lot of things, including electronics, so the major cause of these prices skyrocketing can only be one thing: the rise of AI.

AI development is a juggernaut right now. Every major tech company trying to secure their own models and compete with them are essentially buying up whatever land they can get their hands on and devouring resources at an astronomical rate to make RAM and chips and other components. NVIDIA is a monster right now, being the sole supplier of these components to select few companies at exorbitant rates. Not taking in account any of the harrowing factors AI development has on environmental conditions or jobs in the industry, NVIDIA's CEO Jensen Huang was essentially quoted "It's good for business."

Meanwhile, us gamers have to pay the price. Remember when PC gamers got hit hard trying to find the newest graphics cards at reasonable prices because people were buying them up to mine cryptocurrency? That was just from individuals buying up just graphics cards. Now, multiply that by a magnitude of three and you have entire corporations buying up not just graphics cards, but RAM and raw components in their never ending quest for the next data center, and now the effect has bled into the console industry.

And that's just AI's influence with getting the electronics manufactured. This isn't even taking into account the effect AI is having on the development of games themselves. Right now, backlash from gamers when they detect any game having any form of AI generated assets is scathing.  Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 lost a Game of the Year award for its use of generative AI, and all they did was forget to swap out a placeholder with actual art. Gamers don't want generative AI in their games. Take one good look at the travesty that is Black Ops 7 if you really want to understand why, yet here comes Asha Sharma, new CEO of Xbox, fresh from Microsoft's own AI division, insisting she's not going to shove AI into Xbox games, yet at the same time is facilitating Copilot to be introduced into Xbox. If there's any woman I can't trust as far as I can throw, it's her. 

A 200 dollar increase on a console. I just... I'm still stunned over here.  Granted, it was already an expensive console to begin with, but a TWO HUNDRED DOLLAR increase on a console? There's sticker shock, and there's just shocking. And that's shocking! Is Sony not aware that they just made their already expensive Pro model even harder to afford? With prices on everything else still on the rise, people are going to be tightening their belts even more, and these consoles are going to be much easier for people to rule out of their budgets. Yes, there's always people who say that gaming is a luxury. If you're struggling to buy groceries or pay rent, maybe gaming isn't the right hobby to get into right now, but I've also been of the mind that gaming is for everyone. With such a high price of entry now, that makes it harder for gamers on a budget to enter in through the secondhand market. 

And ultimately, it leads to this: the fewer consoles a company sells, the fewer games they'll sell for it. That has a vicious effect on developers, because if the publishers aren't seeing an immediate turn around, they'll shutter the studio. This has already been happening, and is happening more frequently. In fact, investors in Pearl Abyss - makers of Crimson Desert - bailed, dropping their stock by 30 percent after one day, seeing the Metacritic score of 78 on the PC. Ironically, the game would continue to go on to sell more than three million copies. The effect of investors on the video game industry is a subject for an entirely different blog. 

I keep hearing rumblings that the AI bubble is about to pop, and I seriously hope this is true. Console prices are rising. PC components are rising. Electronics in general are rising. Developers are taking shortcuts with AI in the games. Artists are losing work. I still have a theory about AI data centers adding to global warming from all the heat they put out. Everything is hitting the extreme far too quickly. I don't even want to get into war applications... 

So yeah, I really hope things slow down with AI, because I thought Skynet was scary enough without seeing a console go for nearly 1K.

Should I Even Bother Keeping Up the Fight At This Point....

Wow, okay, so it's been almost a year since I've written a blog here. I really need to get on that. I guess all it takes is something from Nintendo to light a fire under my ass to get going again. 

Before I get into that, anyone who knows me knows what kind of gamer I am, and I'm a collector. I'm not the kind that goes hunting on eBay or go to out of the way mom and pop stores looking for rare treasures (although I used to do that long ago). I'm the kind of collector that just collects what I play; I like to keep my games. I want to address one point that I hear people try to use against me all the time when I debate physical vs digital. 

"You don't own the game! You only own a license to play the game!"

Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. We all know that we don't OWN the actual game. No one has EVER debated that fact. Those rights belong to the IP holder/publisher/developer of said game. And as you said, we own a license - in this case, a copy of the game - to play it. The difference between physical and digital licenses is that when you own a copy of a game physically, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the IP holder/publisher/developer to revoke access to your license. They would need to literally hire someone and send them down to your house with a search warrant to see if you even own a physical copy that they could take back from you. 

We've seen this countless times. Games that people once had access to digitally suddenly found their games deactivated. One such case had PlayStation gamers with downloaded TV shows lose access to what they legitimately purchased: shows downloaded into their personal libraries, not subscribed to. Digital games are also subject to availability based on licenses that the publisher/developer have to continue to pay for, so if a game's becoming long in the tooth and is no longer selling, they'll delist the game so they don't have to pay music holders, car manufactures, and other companies continual licensing fees. 

"Well, a digital game being delisted is the same as a game not being sold in brick and mortar stores!"

Well, um... not really. True, if you head to a store like GameStop or Best Buy, you're not going to find a game that is no longer in print, but the key difference between delisting and out of print is that out of print games can be found at numerous sources in the second-hand market. There is no second-hand market for digital games, which is a crime, as it illustrates an unusual power grab for control over IP that isn't currently netting the holder anymore profit. 

So anyway, I've always made it my thing to buy a physical version whenever I could because I love permanence. When console games began launching simultaneously in adjacent digital store fronts, I kept going to brick and mortar stores and ordering physical copies online because for one, I'm a tactile person by nature and prefer the physicality of slitting open cellophane and opening a box, popping a disc out, and putting in my machine. I know most people don't care about that, more as they just want the convenience, but I also have never adopted an eReader just because I prefer the weight and smell of the book itself. Also, I don't have to worry about shuffling around data because my harddrive is full of game files I've downloaded onto it. 

That last line isn't as relevant today as it was even five years ago, because nowadays, consoles need to install off the disc to the harddrive (well, SSD) because optical drives can't stream the data fast enough for the systems to process, yet still, my earlier points remain: those physical copies are mine, and they'll last forever. 

But this generation has been very frustrating in terms of wanting to hold the line in the war of physical versus digital. If you take a look at the design of the first PlayStation 5 models, you'll have noticed a peculiarity with the disc-based model compared to the digital-only model. The disc model's disc drive was a lump on the side of the console (displayed vertically). It was clear to see that this was a design aspect resulting from an afterthought of Sony realizing that there are still a good number of gamers left who want physical media. This was further evidenced in 2024 when the PS5 Pro was released without a disc drive. Thankfully, one could purchase one separately and slap it in, but still, that was a price-based deterrent to put off as many physical gamers as possible. 

In 2023, Microsoft began its push to cease pressing copies of some of their Xbox games.  Some of their biggest exclusives launched digital only, such as Psychonauts 2 (which apparently did have a physical, but for Kickstarter backers only) and Senuas's Saga: Hellblade 2. Both of these games I actually bit the bullet on and bought digitally, because I really wanted to play them. In most cases, if a game I wanted to play came out digital only, I would try to wait it out for a physical copy. Usually, places like Limited Run Games and iam8bit would do physical copies of games the publishers themselves didn't want to. 

And then we have last year, 2025, when Nintendo themselves tossed their name in the hat to further frustrate physical collectors with the addition of game key-cards. If you don't know what a game key-card is, it's essentially a game card that has the license to download the game from the eShop stored on the card. In essence, it works like PS5 and Xbox games that only have the license key to download the game from their respective store fronts. This allows owners to maintain a "physical" copy to sell and trade should they no longer wish to own their digital copy. The issue with GKCs is that Nintendo refused to give developers cheaper 32 gig cards to put their games on, so we were seeing games that could have easily fit on them, some even being smaller than 10 gigs, end up on GKCs because publishers didn't want to spend the extra money on 64 gig cards. So, we've had many games release on GKCs instead of actual physical media, and that puts a timer on the life of those games, because there will be a point where those games will be delisted, and the GKCs will have no value to anyone else but the current owners. I didn't like the idea of GKCs for that reason alone, but sadly, I decided there's no point in fighting these, so I bought a couple: Octopath Traveler 2 and Pokemon Pokopia. If I can't have an actual physical copy, I guess the next best thing is a GKC. 

So today... *big sigh* Nintendo decides to use a price deterrent to incentivize more gamers to adopt digitally by initiating a price disparity between their digital and physical versions. When I first heard about this story, it was originally reported that physical copies were going to be increased 10 dollars, but Nintendo had to clarify that what they were doing was instead was making digital versions 10 dollars cheaper. It only makes sense as there are no manufacturing or shipping costs associated with digital copies, and this is something I've actually championed for years ago. Unfortunately this clarification came while I was writing this blog, and now it's kinda taken some of the steam out of it, because I wrote this with full intent of ranting about Nintendo, how they've become more greedy this generation with raising the prices on games in general and making their most expensive system to date, yada yada yada. But still, the question remains....

Should I even bother keeping up the fight at this point? More and more games (and I'm actually finally installing Crimson Desert, which apparently doesn't have any data on the disc itself) are being shipped in a GKC way on PS5 and Xbox, and the new Xbox might not even have a drive at all, so there will be a point where physical media just isn't a thing anymore. PC gamers witnessed the loss of their games being pressed on disc years upon years ago. They'll be the first to tell console gamers to just give it up and get used to it, which I get, but I wish you PC gamers pushed back as much as us console gamers are still trying to do. 

What I need to do right now is weigh the importances of what really matters to me against the inevitabilities. Do I simply let go of wanting to play certain games (that will most likely be all games in the future) just because I don't like the idea of not owning my copy? Do I really want to keep putting up with constantly downloading them and shuffling data files around on my SSD? Or.. could I just embrace an all-digital future like many gamers already have and actually enjoy the comforts and conveniences afforded to them by simply having all their games in one place, leaving behind cleaner shelves and less cluttered closets? 

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not I want to give gaming up. Either I'm all in or I'm completely out, and there's simply no way I'm willing to give up gaming for good. Granted, I have the backlog to wait out the next Great Flood, but there's a big enough part of the gamer in me that will want to continue to play the next big new game. I've been relenting over time with the sluice gate slowly opening, but there's just going to be a point where I need to open it all the way up and let the floodwaters take me where they may. 

Paying 700 Dollars For a PS5 Pro Is Sending the Wrong Message to the Industry

There it is, folks. The long awaited, highly speculated, hardly unexpected PS5 Pro. Notice anything? Sleek design? No, not that. Vertical stand sold separately? Haha, that's hilarious, but no. Keep looking. "700 DOLLARS?!?!" There ya go! SEVEN HHHHURRRRNDRRRRED DOLLLAHS! 

So, I haven't written a blog in roughly two and a half years. It usually takes something tremendous to happen in the video game industry that brings me out of my writing rut, and I would say this 700 dollar PS5 Pro is tremendous enough. It's the literal definition of sticker shock that we haven't seen since 2006 when Kaz Hirai announced that the 60 gig model was going to cost 600 dollars. It was enough of a sticker shock to me that I named a Final Fantasy XI character Kazhiraiisajerk. It was absolutely ridiculous. It was also shocking that Sony went in this direction considering they were infamous for: 

Back then, the highest price for a console was 400 for an Xbox 360, 300 if you went for an HDD-less SKU. We weren't used to seeing an extra 200 dollar price bump for another machine. And Sony felt it, too. Sure, it took off initially, but once the early adopters emptied their wallets, it was slow going for them until Sony made several revisions knocking the price down to 500 while also increasing the storage, and eventually introducing Slim models that brought the price down to 300.

So yeah, the PS3 launched at 600 back in 2006! Here it is 18 years later and Sony's putting out a new PS5 model at 700, which is only 100 more, right? So what's the big deal? Here's we start talking about why that is. I'm not going to go into the specs of the system because to be honest, specs bore me. They're just numbers to me and what determines if a machine is worth it is whether or not I can see results. So far, I've only seen a few games that BARELY show improvement. Anyway, here we go. 

What you're seeing here should be clear as day as to what's wrong with the price of the PS5 Pro, but if you can't see it, I'll break it down for you. What you're looking at is a price drop of the PS4 base model while the PS4 Pro launched a couple of months later at the same price as the PS4 base model when it originally launched in 2013. I can't find a similar graphic for Xbox, but MS also launched an Xbox One X at 500 dollars, which was the same price as their base model, which also launched in 2013, and the base model also had a price drop. This is how Sony and MS wanted to condition us with these console refreshes: release a new more powerful version at the same price of the base model while also dropping the price of the base model. Simple. They get an influx of new customers while allowing existing customers to affordably attain their newest, more powerful iteration.  

But now, they've gone backwards... 

This is the complete wrong way to go about doing a system refresh, and every interaction I've had with people discussing this topic have somehow completely forgotten how system refreshes worked in the past. Again, the Pro models launched at the same price as the base models, but here with the PS5 Pro, it's launching 200 dollars MORE than the base model, and let's not forget, this is an all-digital SKU. That's right, there is no disc drive in a SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLAR PS5 Pro. 

So let's reevaluate. It's 700 dollars for an all-digital PS5 without a disc drive. That puts it at 250 dollars more than the all-digital PS5 Slim, and now it's a good time to mention that the price of the all-digital PS5 Slim increased by 50 dollars over the base model. Slim models were always launched cheaper than base models to be more attractive to the consumer, but that's no longer the case. Anyway, if you really want to compare the PS5 Pro with the base model PS5 with disc drive, you need to add the cost of one, which is 80 dollars. And if you've paid attention in this paragraph, then you'd know that if you bought an all-digital Slim at 450 and decided to buy a disc drive, you'd end up paying 30 dollars more than the Slim with a built-in disc drive. The whole optional disc drive situation is just stupid to me. So anyway, the price difference is actually closer to 300 if you're planning on replacing your PS5 with disc drive with a PS5 Pro. And that's just insulting. 

The way I'm looking at this is not Sony giving their customers options of them wanting to get disc drives in the future, but more as them trying to price scare people into giving up their physical media. For some people, they're just going to  say goodbye to their discs because 700 is already a huge asking price. And for those who still want to hold on to their discs, well, might as well make more money off them by selling the drives a la carte. And this bodes ill for the future of physical media. I'm predicting now that the PS6 will be digital only, and we will be looking at least 700 dollars for its launch price. This is the message you're sending Sony and the industry as awhole if you agree to spend this much on a system refresh that is a digital only console. MS and Sony are dying for their consumers to stop buying physical games so they control even more the price of their games. They would also love to charge you for minimal upgrades on system refreshes and make you believe you're getting a real value. They're PRAYING you forgot how about refreshes worked in the past. 

Now, I'd like to discuss rebuttals I've seen by people actually trying to defend this.

My graphics card/PC cost at least twice as much as this, and 700 is too much?

Ok, so there's a couple things about this argument that doesn't really work. For one, PC is an ENTIRELY different market, and an ENTIRELY different experience. You are literally comparing apples and oranges here. Anyone buying a PC is buying something that does far more than just play games and movies. PCs are far more flexible devices and far more customizable, and anyone who's spending more money on graphics cards than a console are usually getting far more out of them in comparison. Plus, playing on PC means free online and cheaper games on average. Steam Sales anyone?  So, for the average CONSOLE gamer, yes, 700 dollars is too much. 

Ok then, it's not for you. It's for enthusiasts. 

But, it's not really. Again, this isn't how refreshes worked in the past. The PS4 Pro and Xbox One X launched at the same price their base models did, which means refreshes are FOR the original intended market. It doesn't make sense NOW to try to invent some new "enthusiast" market that probably won't net Sony as much profit as they're hoping for. But, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. Sony's been trying to reinvent themselves over the past few years with expensive accessories that no one really needs. PSVR 2? PS Portal? Overpriced headsets and ear buds? Sleek, stylish overpriced goods you can find better alternatives for cheaper is indeed something Apple does, so if the Pro is their next "enthusiast" item, then yeah, I guess it isn't for me. But, it's odd that you would use that as a defense for a company who wants to make money, because if you are pitching something to make money, you need to make it as reachable as possible, and a ton of people are already saying no, so if it isn't for me, or them, or us... well, that's really a problem. 

Just say you're broke.

And this one REALLY gets under my skin. Listen, I can afford 10 PS5 Pros and 10 disc drives, but there's no way in hell I'm going to actually do that, because I have a sense of value. Being able to afford something and being able to justify the price of something are two different things. The PS5 Pro at 700 dollars currently does not demonstrate value to me because I feel the graphical upgrades aren't good enough for the cost. We've really approached serious diminishing returns at this stage of the game. And well, forced to buy an add-on disc drive? No thanks. I'd rather spend my money on something else.

Well, what about the 600 dollar Xbox Series X!? How come THAT isn't too much?

And actually, I agree with you on that. The new XSX isn't really an upgrade at all, just more memory, and memory is supposed to be cheaper as the years go on. It should have been 500 for the 2TB model and 400 or 450 for the previous model to keep things in line with value and competition. So, yeah, I don't endorse the new XSX models. But hey, at least it has a disc drive...

It's inflation. Deal with it. 

And another one that bugs me. Yes, inflation is real and it really sucks. Yet again, it DIDN'T affect the previous generation's refreshes. And we saw price drops on all models. Inflation has always been with us, but it didn't affect the previous generation in that way. One might say it's symptomatic of economical damage from COVID, and well, that might just be true to a degree, but I still find it hard to believe that not even the Nintendo Switch could gives us a price drop on their base model eight years later. At least they gave us a cheaper model. All Sony's done was increase the price of their cheaper Slim 50 bucks. Also, PS5 controllers have gone up five dollars when again, with inflation always being with us, controllers have historically dropped in price. This is evidence of greed and arrogance. The video game industry is far FAR too profitable to keep blaming inflation for them having to raise their prices. FAR too profitable. 

Let people spend their money how they want!

True, it's their money and if I feel they're being foolish with it, they can still go right out and buy one. But the issue is this: I share my hobby with those foolish gamers, so how they spend their money directly affects how I spend mind. This is akin to people using this defense when it comes to microtransactions. "Don't like, don't buy it!" I didn't buy them, but enough people did, so it changed the very way some games were designed and made them worse for me, but I've blogged about that already. Point is, if enough people drop 700 on a PS5 Pro, then the PS6 will be 700 and I DON'T want that!

Trade it in GameStop!

I'll agree with you there, but again, you'll still need to deal with the jacked up price, so you're going to pay more out of pocket than you would had the PS5 Pro been more reasonably priced. 

So to sum it all up, I think it's setting a dangerous precedent to buy the PS5 Pro at 700 dollars.  Even if you can justify all the new tech being worth the extra 250-280 bucks, you're letting Sony know that you're ready to do this again with the PS6. If the PS5 Pro is successful, then there's no way they're going to make a more powerful machine and not charge at least 700 for it. We know how Sony feels now about dropping the price on their current models, so a price drop on the PS5 Pro before the PS6 doesn't seem likely. 

And let's not forget the lack of a disc drive. Remember, the original design of the PS5 suggests that the inclusion of a disc drive was an afterthought. Sony was ready to go all-digital THIS generation, but changed their mind to let physical gamers buy discs, but Sony is now ready to put an end to that. They're testing the waters one more time to see just how many gamers still care about their physical games, so if you're like me and still hold on to your physical copies, then not buying a PS5 Pro is even more important. We are definitely losing the war, that much is certain, but I want to hold out as long as I can. 

The crux of the debate should not be about whether or not one can afford a PS5 Pro, but whether or not we can afford to let Sony (and other companies) keep getting away with exploiting us. We are frogs in a boiling pot, and the temperature is continuing to rise. It's time to wake up and really start paying attention. 

Ownership Is Losing Is Importance

If you told me a few months ago that I would start donating my DVDs to the library by the hundreds, I would have laughed at you. 

But, well, that's what's been happening with me lately. I've been having a purge of sorts, a decluttering if you will. It pained me to get rid of my DVDs, movies that I've accumulated since 1998 when I got my first DVD player, but the logical part of my brain finally took over and said, "Look, you never watch them anymore. All they do is take up dust! Get rid of them!"

So how did this happen? Well, thank LEGO. Of the many things I collect and store and display in my room, LEGO sets are one of them, and I like the big ones. I got lots of architecture sets, the Roller Coaster, Stranger Things, etc. And then, I ended up getting the MASSIVE 9000+ piece Titantic. Once I got it put together, I had a hell of a time finding a place for it. I ended up shuffling a lot of things, but one thing that had to happen was getting rid of my books. I needed that shelf space, and suddenly, I found myself throwing my books in a box and taking them to my library without a second thought. These were books I LOVED, but I only read them once and like the DVDs, only collected dusty. Suddenly, it didn't feel so important to continue to own them anymore. If I could discard my books so easily at a whim, I wondered if I could do that with my DVDs, so that's what ended up happening. 

Now, I'm not getting rid of ALL my DVDs. There are classics that I watched all the time as a kid, ones that have my favorite actors, and some that I know I'll get around to watching again when I'm snowed in, but when I went through my collection, it kinda scared me how quickly I was picking out ones to donate. It made me think, "Look at how much money I've spent on theses movies over the years! Why did I feel I had to own everything?" And then, I started to look at my gaming collection. 

Before you get your panties in a twist, don't worry. I'm not looking to get rid of any of my games... anytime soon, that is. My game collection has a more personal connection to me than books or DVDs, or even my CDs, which I'm thinking about next. They also are probably worth a lot more, and a few of them continue to increase in value, like Panzer Dragoon Saga. But getting rid of some of my games isn't completely unfathomable as I've done a few massive trade-ins before. Whenever I grabbed a bunch of games and headed down to the local game store to trade in for a new system or new games, I always ended up feeling regret. I know I'll feel it again, but hey... I got over it. If I'm looking at my shelves wanting some of that space back... I'll probably go through another purge. I really don't want to, though.

So I started thinking of what ownership really means in terms of the video game industry and it has changed a lot, and is still changing. PC gamers lost their right to physical ownership years and years ago. Everything is through some launcher now, Steam, Origin, Epic, GOG, etc. Since the days of Xbox Live Arcade and probably the Nintendo DSi and maybe even earlier, we started seeing smaller indie games release strictly on a digital basis. When we buy these digital games, we don't really own the copies themselves. We own the licenses to access the game itself, which the publishers can and have revoked at their leisure. Harddrives can crash. Servers can be taken offline. Games can be delisted. Unlike physical games, digital games can simply disappear forever. At least you can track down a physical game on eBay or something. 

So I still heavily appreciate the fact that physical copies exist, and will most likely still buy them when I can, but I'm starting to look at maybe not waiting 8 to 10 months for Limited Run to finally get their shit together and send me my damn orders. I may be fine just buying them off digital store fronts to at least get them cheaper, and then that would be less cases I'd need to make shelf space for. I don't know, though. With Limited Run, it's a different case, because their business model by nature is to press limited numbers of copies to create values for collectible games. That's why I bought a copy of Scott Pilgrim vs the World on Switch and kept it sealed. That game's history is a prefect example of why physical games NEED to continue to exist. 

But what happens when you buy a physical copy that needs the internet? Just ask any Switch owner and they'll most likely tell you they bought a game where the entire game wasn't on the card, and the rest of it needed to be downloaded. Five, ten years down the line, the publisher may not want to keep the servers up, and you've got a worthless game on your hands now. There are even "physical" copies of Switch games that have no card in the case; the entire game needs to be downloaded. That's even worse! Does that still feel like ownership to you? We're buying plastic cases with no games in them just to throw it up on our shelves? This even happens with collector's editions of games where you get all these physical goodies, but just a download code. I have the collector's edition of Sonic Mania with the statue of Sonic on the Genesis, and it's just weird to me that I have no physical copy of the game! I don't actually own the game itself! But I bought it anyway, so...

Game ownership just doesn't seem as fulfilling as it used to anymore. Rarely do any games release that are complete these days. Every Xbox One game needs a Smart Delivery patch to bring it up the Xbox Series X|S version, so technically the Xbox Series X|S and have no physical copies at all. Every game needs some kind of patch in general. Switch is so underpowered that for some reason SE won't even let the first two Kingdom Heart games run natively and opted for Cloud Versions. And that's another thing... the Switch is a portable hybrid console. Buying a Cloud version defeats the purpose of playing on the go. Playing it docked, you're better off playing it natively on a better console. You spend money on these streaming games that could some day be delisted or the entire server be shut off. You're essentially paying full price for a rental service. 

While we're on the topic of Nintendo, you can see the concept of ownership evaporating before your very eyes with NSO. You are paying monthly or yearly to have access to just a smattering of legacy content, and you lose that access the moment your subscription expires. This was the trade off for the beloved Virtual Console from the Wii/Wii U era. Yeah, they weren't physical, but you could at least play games YOU PURCHASED without having to have an internet connection check every week. Then there's the recently announced Booster Pack for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. You're paying 25 dollars to wait TWO YEARS to receive all 48 tracks, and Nintendo has specifically gone this route to keep people subbed for those two years. Seems more and more like Nintendo is the one who is owning you. 

Add-on DLC is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it extends the life of a game, and usually is done as a stopgap for people waiting on the next game (unless it's GTA 5, then who cares about supporting the single player game). On the other, it makes it harder for some people to want to buy games at launch anymore knowing that there's a good chance that a Game of the Year or Collector's Edition will release a year later with the included DLC. For the early adopters, it's weird knowing that you own a physical copy, but not the actual DLC portion of the game. All these DLCs, season passes, microtransactions... and don't even get me started on NFTs... it just complicates matters. 

But well, I'm trying to understand why some people just don't care as much about ownership as I do, and it just easily comes down to the fact that they really don't have to care. Some people don't like keeping track of things, and will easily pawn it off or donate the games to someone when they're done. Some people just want to play a game once and never return to it again because they're always moving on to the next game. That's kinda what I'm doing now. Whether it's a DVD or game, I'm always watching or playing something new. I doubt any game that I own I'll go back to playing again, because my focus is trying to eliminate my backlog. If I start to allow myself to stop caring about ownership, I could actually end up saving myself a lot of money. 

I used to be a hardcore proponent for ownership, but I know now that I'm fighting an uphill battle, and I won't fight anyone on it anymore. The adoption of digital games on current consoles is only continuing to grow, and Game Pass is showing no signs of slowing down any time soon. It was also weird that I didn't like the idea of paying a subscription fee to play games, but I had no problem watching movies and TV shows on Netflix. Obviously, ownership didn't mean anything to me when I was watching Netflix, so why would I think ownership would mean anything to me on Game Pass. Now that I think about it, I played and enjoyed a few free games on PSN: Falls Guys, Bugsnax and Days Gone. I didn't feel the need to own them when I was playing them, so if I really wanted to go the sub route, I probably could. 

There WILL come the time when consoles finally dispense with physical copies and everything is digital through their stores. Both Sony and MS tried it, but there's still some amount of pushback, and I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo tries an all digital version of the Switch 2 to test the waters. It's better that I start changing my mentality now so that it will be easier to deal with when the shift happens several years down the line. So yeah, ownership is losing its importance. Don't kid yourself thinking it isn't, because if it really was that important, it would be important to everyone. 

There's Just Something Ugly About a 70 Dollar Price Tag

It feels like I've talked about this before already.  Hmm... yes. Yes, I did.  Although that blog was more aimed at Sony, it seems like I need to talk about it again, because it seems the problem's only getting worse. Last week, during The Game Awards (I should have blogged about that, oh well), we got a new gameplay trailer for Square-Enix's upcoming RPG Forspoken, and man, does that game look great! We also got a release date of May 24th, 2022, which was really nice to hear. What wasn't nice to hear was that, unfortunately, SE has now decided to join the group of seedy, scummy publishers charging 70 dollars for their games. Yes, Forspoken will be 70 dollars for both PS5 AND PC. Yes, even PC. 

Remember when the PC Master Race used to belittle us console plebs by bragging about how all their games were cheaper than ours? Although that gap has closed over the years, with many AAA games now being 60, SE has now tightened that gap even more by launching Forspoken at 70. 70 still isn't the average yet, but companies like SE are really pushing for it to be, even going so far as to sell a PC game for 70... A PC game... A game released for a platform that owes no platform holder a licensing fee, and releases their games strictly digitally, so money is being spent on pressing discs and shipping them out.  Think about that, for a second. Provided that Forspoken sells well, they'll have made even more profit on PC than they would on PS5. 

I know there's a crowd out there that defends price hikes by saying games cost more money to make, and that's true to a degree. But guess who keeps getting more and more money? Publishing execs. If you were to tell me that the developers are guaranteed more of a cut or don't get fired the moment they finish the game, then maybe it would be easier for me to accept the new price... but I really don't think so. Hell, you have 2K selling sports games at 70 dollars WITH loot boxes and microtransactions! Can you not see the greed here?

What's disappointing is that just a few months ago, the same company, SE, put out the critically acclaimed Guardians of the Galaxy for 60 dollars. Although, that was across multiple platforms, so maybe a bean counter had a formula that let them be just as profitable at a lower price because it would sell more on multiple platforms. But also take into consideration what franchise this is. It's Guardians of the Galaxy, a Marvel property, which is Disney owned. This means Disney would be getting a cut, so if SE was going to start charging 70 dollars, why not start with Guardians when there was more hands in the cookie jar?

Also, take into consideration that SE has another perpetual money making machine in the form of Final Fantasy XIV. Hot after many awards, the game is currently enjoying its fifth new expansion with subscriptions at an all time high. On top of paying for the game plus expansions and subscriptions, there are still optional microtransactions being sold. They sell JUST mounts for upwards of 40 bucks, not to mention all the pieces of clothing and minions that are five bucks here, 10 bucks here. FFXIV prints SE money. Forspoken would have been just fine at 60. 

So I'm curious to see just how well it'll sell on PC, because it won't do THAT great on PS5 with only a few million machines out in the wild. Will the PC crowd hold off, or will they fight back with piracy? Let's also talk about the IP itself. Is Forspoken even worthy enough to be a 70 dollar game? It's a brand new IP, and a risky one at that, placing a black woman into a heavily Japanese influenced world. The draw for the common gamer might have been weak at 60, let alone 70. I just don't see this performing well. I for one am going to pass at 70, and I'm going to make a commitment to buy any game that launches at 70 at a used price instead. 

"Well, if you can't afford an extra 10 dollars, then you can't afford video games." See, that's the kind of argument I hate. I get that gaming is a luxury hobby. It's not cheap, but it doesn't have to be price-gouging. Think of it this way. Let's say you buy two games a month at 60. Now you have to pay 70. That's an extra 240 dollars a year, which would have been four more games you could have bought at 60. It adds up. You shouldn't be advocating for these incremental price increases, because at some point, gaming will become too expensive, even for you. 

And let's be honest here. The jump from the eighth generation of gaming to the ninth has not been as impressive as the jump from the six to the seventh, when games started being 60. As much as I loved the Demon's Souls remake, I just can't convince myself it was worth 70, especially since Bluepoint released the Shadow of the Colossus remake at 40. As much as I loved Ratchet and Clank: A Rift Apart, it was no where near meaty enough to warrant 70 dollars. As interesting as Returnal is, I can't see myself paying 70 for what's essentially a really shiny rogue-like. 

I don't want the standard to be 70, because I personally don't feel it's worth it. There's just something ugly about the numbers 7 and 0 being together. I guess it's because it's getting closer to 100, and if there's a day that games cost 100 dollars, we're going to be in some serious trouble. We need to seriously question WHY the prices are going up, and we need to look at the record profits their CEOs are making. With all the work place abuse that's being covered up in companies such as Activision, Ubisoft, and now even Bungie, we should be more wary of giving these corporations more of our hard earned dollars. We just need to stop wanting so much. We're becoming frogs in the slowly boiling pot. 

I know this blog doesn't have much reach, but I'm hoping maybe whoever reads it will share it or tell a friend, and ask them to hold off on buying new games at 70 dollars. We have to admit that we're being taken advantage of and we need to fight back, because next generation, it could be 80. Then the one after that will be 90, and now we're at 100. Do we really love gaming enough to allow ourselves to be taken advantage of like that? I love gaming enough that I want to do something about it. I hope you will, too. Let's make game prices attractive again. 

September 2021's Nintendo Direct Left Me Both Extremely Happy and Extremely Pissed

This isn't going to be a breakdown of everything that was announced at the Nintendo Direct. You can either watch the show or read an article about it if you want to know the announcements. Instead, this is going to be a blog about how Nintendo, as per usual, has me feeling weird after their Directs. Let's just get right into this. 

Very early on, Nintendo announced a game that had me so freaking happy, I didn't care what else was announced. This is the one for me. 

Look at that!  Look at it! It's a new Kirby in 3D! I have been waiting for a 3D Kirby game for a very long time. Not only is it in 3D, it gave off some really strong Super Mario Odyssey vibes, and I obviously really loved that game. So, to see Kirby finally get a potentially huge installment in his franchise just has me over the roof. My jaw hung open pretty much the full length of the trailer. I can't wait to start sucking up enemies and taking their powers in glorious 3D! 

So, another pleasant surprise that left me feeling pretty good is Actraiser Renaissance. 

I'm sure there's plenty of people who don't remember Actraiser, but I'm not one of them. Actraiser was one of those games I never had as a kid but did rent. I'm pretty sure I never finished it. If you never played Actraiser, the trailer does a really good job showing you exactly what kind of game it's like. It's a mixture of side-scrolling action-RPG gameplay with topdown world building. It was a great game, and the remake looks like it's going to keep the exact same gameplay just with renewed graphics. It's actually out today, but.... ARGH... I'm trying to stick to one game a month!

And then, the show ended with ... THIS!

Finally! FINALLY! We get to see Bayonetta 3! Now, to be perfectly honest, I wasn't that impressed with the trailer. For starters, it's so hard to be impressed visually by a game that's been built on a decade old engine. Graphics aside, I know it's going to be a great game, because Bayonetta always had fantastic gameplay. I just don't think they chose the right gameplay segment to really make the best impression. I'm just glad that Nintendo FINALLY let Platinum show off the game so we can stop wondering if it's still coming or not. If only we had Metroid Prime 4... if only. 

These three announcements really upped my serotonin levels, so I should have closed my browser feeling and staying happy. For the most part, I was, but the more I thought about one of the announcements, the more pissed off I got. 

Now, I wasn't completely surprised by the N64 announcement, because I had a strong feeling it was coming when Nintendo filed the patent for a new controller. It was only logical that it would have been the N64 controller. When I heard that Genesis games were coming, that was exciting. Nintendo finally added not just one, but TWO systems to their NSO service. Not only that, but there's a good selection from each system. So... 

Yes, I do. Two, actually. The first is that, if you watched the N64+Genesis video, you'd see that Nintendo is going to be implementing a new membership plan. This means they're going to charge extra for access to these games. Need I remind you that these games were playable as far back as the Wii? Need I remind you that whenever Nintendo starts over on building a virtual legacy store, they do it so slowly and pick very obscure games that no one's ever heard of or care about? I just recently canceled NSO because I felt that it just wasn't worth it content wise, and now, after Nintendo finally steps foot in the right direction, they expect MORE money from us? 

Of course, everyone on YouTube and Twitter is losing their minds. Nintendo fans are just weird. We just can't stop throwing our money at them for any little bone they give us. Well, that stops with me. I'm never resubbing to NSO, especially if I have to pay extra for the NSO Expansion Pack. To make things worse, there's these:

50 dollars. EACH! For reproductions of really old controllers!  Yet, there's a ton of Nintendo games who easily dropped 100 dollars today. Better get them now because you know the scalpers will be all over them. Jesus Christ... But look at the Genesis controller. What do you see? It's the three button controller, not the six button controller, so that means a lot of Genesis games won't be considered for the NSO Expansion. Well, that is if you want to press start to swap from kick and punch for games like Street Fighter II. No thanks. I was never into the NES and SNES Switch controllers, so I'm definitely passing on these. Besides, I already have a Genesis Mini whos collection is so vast that I doubt Nintendo will ever come close to it before the Switch reaches end of life. But man... Nintendo. This. Has. Got. To. Stop. Stop taking advantage of our nostalgia! Treat us fairly! 

Gah, I'm just a mess today. What makes my crash that much worse is that I rarely feel this happy after a Direct, and when I just wanted to be in Kirby and Bayonetta bliss, I just can't stop thinking about the NSO Expansion Pack and how poorly implemented it was. But if there's anything I can say about Nintendo is that they know how to be consistent. Consistently stupid. 

Thank You, Sony, For Making It Easier to Save Money

You know what, I've had enough of Sony. I've tried to justify spending 70 dollars on their games when the PS5 came out, because for one, I needed some games during the honeymoon period, and for a time, I was actually convinced that because games took more money to make, the increase in price was warranted. All the extra development time in textures, and ray tracing, and hot dog warming, and all that. It was just time, wasn't it? I mean, wasn't Demon's Souls worth 70 dollars by being a completely rebuilt game... nevermind the fact that Bluepoint also rebuilt Shadow of the Colossus and sold it for 20 dollars less than the PS4 standard? 

But then... Sony got greedy. Or, should I say greedier as 70 dollars for a game is already greedy enough. Last week, Sony tripped over their own feet by making a mess of their upcoming Horizon: Forbidden West launch by making all these different versions. Very soon, though, it was discovered that if you just had the launch version of Forbidden West on the PS4, you couldn't upgrade to the PS5. You HAD to buy the Digital Deluxe version which contained both copies. There was also their 250+ dollar Regalia collector's edition that for whatever reason did not have a physical copy.  I don't support that jackassery. 

Anyway, Sony learned very quickly that they made a mistake. They backpedaled earlier this week and said that the upgrade to the PS5 version would be free, which is great, but they also clearly laid out that this was the only time they were going to make this concession. They flatout said each first party release hereafter will have a 10 dollar upgrade fee. So here's the thing... 

Look at what everyone else is doing, MS for instance. Every game you buy on the Xbox One for 60 dollars you can upgrade for free for the Series S|X via Smart Delivery. Granted, they aren't pressing Series S|X specific copies, but you can still get the next gen upgrades for free. 60 is better than 70 no matter how you look at it. As much as I wish MS would focus on first-party content, I cannot deny the value in Smart Delivery, as well as Game Pass. Now, I don't play so many games at once that I can justify subbing to Game Pass, but I do know the service kicks the crap out of whatever Sony offers, but that's another blog post. 

Even on Sony's PS5, there are AAA publishers releasing their games for 60 dollars. Deathloop, a Bethesda game, is 60 dollars. Dying Light 2 and Guardians of the Galaxy are 60 dollars, both by Square-Enix. Hell, look at all the Ubisoft games that released on launch day. Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Immortals, those were 60. Far Cry 6, one of Ubisoft's biggest games, is coming out next month .... at 60 dollars. Bethesda, SE, Ubisoft. These are huge AAA publishers (well, one is an MS studio now, but I digress), and some have made egregious business decisions regarding DLC and MTXs, but even they are saying no to selling games at 70 dollars. Unfortunately, there's still a couple of jerks selling their games at 70, such as Activision's Call of Duty games and 2K's sports games, but since Sony wants to echo what two of the worst companies when it comes to anti-consumer practices, I have no choice but to regard Sony as being highly anti-consumer.

And then, let's take a look at this oddness. To fill in the gaps of Sony's lacking first-party PS5 line up, they've been brining more PS4 games into the mix. Both Death Stranding and Ghost of Tsushima have Director's Cut editions. As expected, GoT is 70 dollars, but Death Stranding is 50! I'm not that surprised that GoT is 70, because it does have an entire expansion pack in it, but then DS:DC is not only NOT 70, it's also 10 dollars CHEAPER than when it released on the PS5, WITH all that extra quality of life goodness, the new story content, and the PS5 features. So why, oh why, then is a 50 dollar price tag NOT the standard? Makes me want to get the Ghost of Tsushima DLC even less. 

So they can keep their free upgrade of Horizon: Forbidden West. I'll be buying that game at most on sale, or better yet, used. I'll be doing the same for each and every Sony game from here on out. I really want to start buying multiplats on XSX from now on, but I also don't like having to sit and wait on Smart Delivery to download massive patches for each and every game. Plus, it's REALLY hard to say no to the Dual Sense controller. I heard MS is working with the company that designed it, so hopefully, MS gets on haptic feedback real soon. I'd like to give Sony even less of money right now. 

I really hate it when it companies get extremely arrogant like this. When MS tried this in 2013 with the Xbox One always-online requirements, I was ready to boycott. Thankfully, enough gamers like me were vocal enough to get MS to backpedal. Sony tried to gouge us with Forbidden West, and again, we were vocal enough to get Sony to backpedal. Now, I wish gamers would finally wake up and realize Sony doesn't need to hit us for an extra 10 dollars, when they are the among the very few charging the next-gen tax. MS, their direct competitor, isn't doing that, and even Sony themselves aren't consistent by selling Death Stranding: Director's Cut at a whopping 20 dollars less than Ghost of Tsushima. We've given Sony so much of our money over the past 25 years. It's time Sony starts giving us a little of it back. 

Now... if I can just start saying no to Nintendo... But that's an ENTIRELY different blog...