Jamie @JamieOffline

@_Hero_Hei_ @McDonalds Teach em to put the fries in the bag.

@HvNzBerry Sorry, your girl is getting railed by Chad, but don't take it out on us.

@ItsLethalTTV I would take that every day for the rest of my life, over the summer.

Honestly, personally, I think they just need 2 SKUs. One that is just a console, no pc mode, nothing. Then one that is the pc / console, and just charge a premium and assume they will never use the storefront, so make it 100% unsubsidised and with whatever profit they want. The only reason I stated above was the fact that MS can never make up their mind if they are done with consoles or they are not.

Jacob, your thread assumes the conclusion you want to reach rather than proving it. Your central claim is that physical buyers are "selfish" because they won't voluntarily pay more for physical games. That sounds compelling until you examine the assumptions behind it. First, you repeatedly imply that physical media is uneconomical. Yet Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft, Take-Two, Capcom, Sega, and countless others have sold physical games profitably for decades. If physical were genuinely a money-losing proposition, publishers wouldn't have continued manufacturing millions of copies every year. The more accurate statement is that digital has higher margins, not that physical is unprofitable. You also never show the math behind your "$25–30 more" assertion. You simply say, "I suspect it needs to be $25 or $30." Based on what data and analysis? The Blu-ray disc doesn't cost that. The case doesn't cost that. The artwork doesn't cost that. The assembly doesn't cost that. You then cite manufacturing, storage, retail buybacks, shrinkage, defective discs, and shipping as justification, but those categories aren't all borne by the publisher. Retail shrink—shoplifting, employee theft, and inventory discrepancies—is a retailer expense. Retailers don't routinely bill publishers because someone stole games off the shelf. Manufacturing defects, shipping damage, and freight claims are entirely different categories. You're treating them as though they're all publisher expenses. If you're going to argue physical requires another $25–30 per copy, show the actual breakdown. Consumers are not morally obligated to maximize Sony's margins. Companies maximize profit. Consumers maximize value. Neither side owes the other a sacrifice. If Sony wants to charge $80 for a physical copy and consumers buy it, great. If they don't, then the market has spoken. Calling customers selfish for not voluntarily increasing Sony's margins isn't an economic argument—it's a moral judgment. You ignore why people buy physical in the first place. People don't buy physical games because they enjoy owning a piece of plastic. They buy them because they value ownership, resale, preservation, and the ability to purchase outside a single storefront. They can lend games, resell them, preserve them, and continue playing even if a title is delisted. Those aren't irrational preferences. They're legitimate consumer benefits. Ironically, companies you've worked with undermine your very argument. Sony still manufactures Blu-ray movies. Sony Music still releases CDs. Clearly, Sony has not concluded that optical media itself is economically impossible or inherently unprofitable. The difference is that PlayStation gives Sony something Blu-ray movies never will: a closed ecosystem. A closed ecosystem gives Sony complete control over pricing, distribution, licensing, subscriptions, refunds, DLC, and ultimately the customer relationship. Those incentives go far beyond the cost of pressing a Blu-ray. Lastly, for someone with your work history, the tone of your replies says a lot. Instead of engaging with criticism, your default response is to label people as selfish, narcissistic, pathetic, or communists. Someone raises concerns about ownership or competition, and suddenly they're a communist. Someone else criticizes anti-consumer practices, and they're pathetic. Someone then challenges your economics, and you tell them to "pay double." Someone also said "physical is superior", and your response is "hahaha." Those aren't rebuttals. They're dismissals. They're a way of avoiding the substance of the criticism instead of engaging with it. Calling someone a communist because they support competing distribution channels is especially ironic. Physical retail, used games, and multiple sellers are examples of market competition, not central planning. Competition is one of the defining characteristics of capitalism. Nobody said Sony has to sell physical forever. What a lot of people are objecting to is the idea that consumers are somehow selfish because they don't want fewer ownership rights, fewer purchasing options, and more dependence on a single storefront that will eventually close, all while paying the same price. You spent thousands of words explaining why Sony prefers digital. You spent almost no time explaining why consumers should. Instead, anyone who disagreed with you was selfish, narcissistic, pathetic, or a communist. That's not an argument. It's a way of dismissing criticism instead of engaging with it. You have yet to support your claim that physical media is no longer economically viable. What you did spend a lot of time explaining, however, is why a platform holder would rather have complete control over pricing, distribution, licensing, and the customer relationship. It's a perfectly rational strategy for Sony. But what's good for Sony's bottom line isn't automatically what's best for consumers.

It's not just AI or tariffs—it's the entire supply chain. Companies may have gotten some tariff relief, but that doesn't erase higher manufacturing, shipping, logistics, labor, energy, and component costs. When the price of one thing goes up, every business down the chain pays more, and those increases stack on top of each other until the product reaches the consumer. That's why we're seeing higher prices across consoles, PCs, food, transportation, and a lot of other industries. It's a domino effect, not a single-cause problem.

@Lootbound_ Game is legit goated . Please support Linux later on

If you go with fiber, absolutely—you can run the power and fiber through the same trench (though local electrical code may require separate conduits). Fiber isn't affected by electromagnetic interference, so it's more ideal. If you stick with CAT6, I'd avoid running it alongside power in the same conduit. Even though modern twisted-pair Ethernet rejects most interference, it's still best practice to keep power and data separated or use separate conduits with some spacing between them. Since you're already trenching, I'd still lean toward fiber. Sorry I'm not the fastest phone typer.

@Tusk_4Real

Room Temperature IQ much: The point was that 3D All-Stars wasn't just a bundle. Nintendo updated all three games for Switch. Sunshine got HD rendering, widescreen, and modernized controls. Now they're releasing the original GameCube version on NSO instead of bringing back the improved Switch version.

@PeterP_1985 @ForzaHorizon

@Qwik The fake surprise is the funniest part. You don't spend years reducing physical releases, making games digital-only, and pushing digital storefronts, then act shocked when 82% of purchases are digital.

@ironXclawGaming Except the average PlayStation user has an IQ that makes a blinking 12VCR look like a rocket scientist. The average Twitter one is even worse.

@K__Med No normal is still the same limp-tastic difficulty it was. They just poked more holes in your shield game.

@FanosSlap_Vt @K__Med Tell me you don't know Amazon left Russia without telling me. That's literally why he bought it from Wildberries

Except they won't. GFWL already proved PC gamers don't like being forced into Microsoft's ecosystem. When Microsoft started pushing the Windows Store as the future of Windows, Valve invested in SteamOS and Linux as a hedge against Windows becoming a more closed platform. Making Elder Scrolls VI and Fallout 5 Xbox Store exclusive would absolutely get Xbox Store installs—but it would also repeat the same mistakes that created the backlash in the first place. We've seen this play out before.

I think this is more of Jez's thought experiment than a rumor backed by concrete evidence. There's a difference between "Microsoft wants to strengthen its own ecosystem" and "Microsoft is going to pull Xbox games from Steam." One doesn't automatically lead to the other. Based on Microsoft's public strategy over the last several years, they've consistently expanded where people can play their games, not reduced distribution. Until there's actual evidence of a change in direction, I'd rather stick to what's been announced than build conclusions from a chain of "what ifs."

@IdleSloth84_