Something being as it is doesn’t mean it ought to be that way.
You would prefer that a rich asshole with all the money in the world who has 7 switches in different colours and sizes and all the gears with them but never plays them, just has them because he wants to let people know he has them should have more of a chance of getting a new Switch 2 than, say, a teenage loner kid who’s only comfort from bullying has been a Switch he’s been playing religiously for the past few years and has just managed to save up for a new Switch 2 and is super excited for it coming out?
Because I would definitely say the latter should be prioritised. And that is what Nintendo is doing, and your take makes zero sense. “But why won’t anyone think of the scalpers?!”
No I was not I was saying that literally people already have to pay for these consoles. That is uts own barrier.
Having to also pass a threshold of play hours is a secondary barrier and you are being aghressive with your fight against capitalism to act as if it is some shining beacon to base it on loyalty.
I owe you nothing and this is my last response while you aim to bark like this rather than communicate.
You’re getting offended, because I’m asking you to stand behind what you literally posted about?
Kinda weird, man.
You’re saying they should price it higher to make it about “who has the means”. That is literally the purest capitalism. Nintendo is choosing an alternate priority.
Guess you’re mad at me for showing you what your values are, huh?
Entertainment systems company marketing to people with free time?
Those bastards.
A willingness to pay would be it own priority I would think
So you mean they should just prioritise rich people instead of passionate people?
They can’t know how much free time people have, but it’s a fair assumption that more time using the Switch means you’re more interested in playing it.
They’re rewarding loyalty. But you think they should reward… having money?
No. They cost money that’s a very core principle of our system. I’m asking isn’t that enough of am incentive?
Don’t be like that. You are trying to get a response from what you wished to have read and it’s gross.
Something being as it is doesn’t mean it ought to be that way.
You would prefer that a rich asshole with all the money in the world who has 7 switches in different colours and sizes and all the gears with them but never plays them, just has them because he wants to let people know he has them should have more of a chance of getting a new Switch 2 than, say, a teenage loner kid who’s only comfort from bullying has been a Switch he’s been playing religiously for the past few years and has just managed to save up for a new Switch 2 and is super excited for it coming out?
Because I would definitely say the latter should be prioritised. And that is what Nintendo is doing, and your take makes zero sense. “But why won’t anyone think of the scalpers?!”
You are having a different conversation than I am and it’s not with this topic either.
You were just saying you think money should matter more than playhours.
That is very much one of the implications. You not having thought of that is not my problem.
Make your point then, please.
No I was not I was saying that literally people already have to pay for these consoles. That is uts own barrier.
Having to also pass a threshold of play hours is a secondary barrier and you are being aghressive with your fight against capitalism to act as if it is some shining beacon to base it on loyalty.
I owe you nothing and this is my last response while you aim to bark like this rather than communicate.
You’re getting offended, because I’m asking you to stand behind what you literally posted about?
Kinda weird, man.
You’re saying they should price it higher to make it about “who has the means”. That is literally the purest capitalism. Nintendo is choosing an alternate priority.
Guess you’re mad at me for showing you what your values are, huh?