Google couldn’t make cloud gaming work when the entire world was stuck inside with a sudden desire to play more video games. They were given an underhand toss for the best possible scenario to get cloud gaming off the ground, and it didn’t take. The math doesn’t work out.

We’re also losing the ability to shrink our transistors at this point, so the things that made old tech cheaper before don’t really apply anymore.

Speaking to BL4 in particular, it certainly doesn’t make me feel good to have to parse a chart to see which DLC I have to buy to get the thing that I want, but with Paradox games, I definitely don’t want all $300 of DLC, especially at the start and they’re all in a readable linear list. I think I bought 3 expansions for Cities: Skylines, and the others didn’t speak to me, so especially on a sale, it’s not a high buy-in. The “whole package” would include tons of stuff I had no interest in using.

Why was it not an option to buy just the DLC you wanted?

With the exception of Pre-Sequel (which came out after 2 but takes place between 1 and 2), I liked each new game more than the last, so I’m glad they kept making sequels. And unlike Destiny, adding new content doesn’t mean erasing what came before it, so you can still go back and enjoy one that you may have liked better for one reason or another.

I get how that can be a hard sell at $30. I did buy the deluxe edition of the game, so I’ve got this in my account, but I haven’t played the DLC yet because my co-op partner doesn’t have it. You can make an argument that the new character class bundled with it makes it worth it, if you’re in the market to replay the game again with a new play style, but that’s only going to appeal to so many people. I did have a great time with the game, and I will be checking out the DLC sooner or later. I would recommend it on a sale, if nothing else, especially since a few years down the line, whatever your new PC is will be able to brute force its way paced the unfortunately high system requirements. The game still excels in combat design, character class design, and encounter design. They made a really good looter shooter, and unlike most of its contemporaries, they actually let you own it without always-online bullshit.

She’s written for IGN as games media before going on to write for video games themselves. She had a stint working at Sony Santa Monica writing for Cory Barlog’s still-unannounced new game, and she’s now working on a handful of upcoming indie games. She’s done at least one indie film project and she’s done a handful of VO roles in games. Most recently, you probably heard her as Malevola in Dispatch.

The first game system I ever had was a Game Gear when I was 6, but I think every game I ever got for it was a gift. We got a Sega Genesis the following year, when I was 7 (1996). Little did I know at the time it was actually obsolete at that point, but that’s why my parents got it for me when they did; it was dirt cheap. So were the games. I kid you not when I say I could walk into a FuncoLand with $10 and walk out with 20 used Genesis games, most of which were $0.25 each. So as a result, I have no idea what the first game I bought was, because my brother and I bought a plethora of games all at the same time. In that haul though, probably, was Vectorman, Jurassic Park, Clayfighter, and Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (we already got Sonic 1 and 2 with the console, as well as a couple of Mortal Kombat games that our parents made us return when they realized how violent they were, because I guess the title left it ambiguous).

That’s why I said it was the up-front cost that’s cheaper. This is how it’s been for a long, long time now.

Analysts have been calling that this price increase would come to consoles too, and it’s already come for the Xbox. What firm do you work for that your data is telling you otherwise?

Because the equivalent graphics card is about $450, and you still need to buy a CPU, storage, RAM, PSU, and case. And it’s only the up-front cost that’s cheaper.

Memory. Xbox raised their prices already.

The “bulk” of that Steam Deck compared to Switch 2 is what I’d call ergonomics. I was actually shocked that Nintendo didn’t reevaluate their joycon design more, because the Switch sucks to hold for long periods of time, and alternate joycons are one of the most prominent third party peripherals.

Even without getting into piracy territory, yes. You need a subscription for online play on console, and there’s a lot of competition among PC stores to keep prices low during sales, including bundles of games. So for perhaps most use cases these days that involve some amount of online play and playing a certain number of games per year, PC ends up cheaper.

And I don’t have data for this, because I’m not an analyst, and Piscatella shares what he shares, so all I’ve got are anecdotal observations.

• Some Nintendo properties have extremely strong moats, as Warren Buffet might call them. Pokemon, Mario, and Zelda especially. Even if a new property like Splatoon does well, it doesn’t mean it’s a system seller the way old exclusives used to be. The lower bound for this moat is clearly what the Wii U did in sales.
• Switch 1 was very popular with children, as the machine is cheaper and more durable than handheld PC equivalents. It was very easy to end up with multiple Switch 1s per household. The industry outside of mobile and Nintendo has done, from what I can tell, a horrendous job of catering to children compared to how it used to.

Speaking for myself, even if I wasn’t pissed off at how Nintendo operates as a company and decided not to be a customer of theirs anymore, they’re still running into the same problems that caused me to lose interest in PlayStation. They can’t put out enough exclusives to justify a $500 machine to play them, since I’m going to be playing everything else, at better settings, for the same or lower price, on PC.

Mat Piscatella of Circana makes a good argument that they haven’t proven that. A lot of Xbox titles became all-time PS5 best-sellers immediately after getting ported. People who wanted to play those games could have bought an Xbox at any point to play them before the multiplatform strategy was announced, but they didn’t. He would argue that people have already settled into their platform of choice and just wait for the games they want to come there. Something like a third of all console players (at least Xbox/PS) are only playing multiplatform live service games on those consoles, not any of the marquis exclusives.

And to be honest, that makes sense. In the grand scheme of things, there aren’t even that many exclusives anymore, compared to the deluge that there might have been in the 5th/6th gens.

There are fewer and fewer reasons as time goes on, but the big one is that it’s usually a lower up-front cost (in a lot of cases, still is) and just works without any fuss. We might find the fuss on PC to be pretty minimal, but on console, it approaches 0. PCs have gotten easier to work with, people have become more literate in how to use them, and the long-term savings on PC with a significantly sized library have become more apparent, but there will always still be a market for something like a console, even if that means they abandon some of their defining traits in order to survive the future.

Xbox had already begun raising prices for the same reason Sony’s doing so now.

Skyrim was made two console generations ago, so I’m afraid you can’t use it as any sort of metric for how games are made today. Starfield’s team was about 100 people larger.

I don’t follow you. The Witcher games take place after the books for exactly the same reason, and they’re highly acclaimed.