Latest / Critical Error / Consoles Are Too Expensive (But We’re Buying Anyway)

Transcript

Consoles Are Too Expensive (But We’re Buying Anyway) · Critical Error

0:00
Jake, I'm really worried about the
0:01
PlayStation 6.
0:02
>> Peter, I think you should be worried
0:04
about getting some smooches.
0:05
>> [music]
0:06
>> A critical error is an error which the
0:08
OS cannot reasonably ignore.
0:10
Jake Steinberg is a streamer, writer,
0:12
and certified yapper, complimentary.
0:15
Peter Hunt Spit
0:17
is a YouTuber, journalist, and certified
0:20
yapper, derogatory. These are the things
0:23
they cannot reasonably ignore. [music]
0:24
>> I see this fear, this anxiety expressed
0:28
all over the internet. It is rumored
0:31
that the PlayStation 6 will be released
0:34
next year in 2027.
0:38
We can't. We still have so much that we
0:40
could accomplish in the Generation 9
0:44
consoles. We can't move on to the next
0:46
generation this soon. What is going on
0:50
with this this anxiety that so many
0:52
people feel in the gaming space? I feel
0:54
like even the listener right now at the
0:55
beginning of this episode is like,
0:57
"Jake, I agree with that sentiment. I
0:59
don't want us to go to the next
1:00
generation yet. It's too soon. Where
1:02
does this come from?"
1:03
>> Uh money, right? I mean like I I think a
1:06
lot of the anxiety comes from the fear
1:09
of the increasing price of hardware,
1:11
right? We've seen over the last year
1:13
everything. I mean every one of the
1:15
major sort of consoles has had a at
1:18
least one price increase. And then now
1:21
here is what do they call the Steam
1:22
Machine?
1:24
And the base model of that is what,
1:26
$1,200? Or it's over $1,000 at least, I
1:28
know. Uh and so I think that people are
1:30
freaked out about that because if they
1:32
want to stay current, if they want to
1:33
stay on top of all of the latest and
1:34
greatest games on the PlayStation and
1:36
the Xbox, there's not going to be
1:37
another Xbox by by the way, guys. Um but
1:40
every if everyone wants to play on have
1:41
the PlayStation 6, it's like, "Where am
1:43
I going to find
1:45
a thousand dollars, twelve hundred
1:47
dollars?"
1:48
>> Yeah, right.
1:49
>> it's and I think it's a fair fear.
1:51
>> Mhm.
1:52
>> But
1:54
>> fear
1:55
>> Bring back fear.
1:56
>> Fear. Bring back fear.
1:58
>> Where did fear go? What happened to
1:59
Alma? That was a pull by the way. I
2:01
cannot believe I just had Alma in my
2:04
right like ready to go.
2:05
>> You simply adopted the contemporary
2:08
console marketplace. I was born in it,
2:12
molded by it. I want to talk about this
2:15
fear thing really quick because I do
2:16
think that there's a genuine like fear
2:19
and anxiety around expensive consoles.
2:21
We of course saw that this past week
2:24
with the reveal of the Steam Deck being
2:26
in its base version like $1,050.
2:29
A an amount that I think even Valve
2:33
themselves seems to think it's
2:35
>> They're a little sheepish. Yeah, they're
2:36
like they're like I'm sorry.
2:38
>> [laughter]
2:38
>> So So I just want to I kind of want to
2:40
hone in on this because I I do think
2:42
that I I want to get to the bottom of
2:44
kind of like what this fear and anxiety
2:45
is before we go any further because I
2:48
think it's more than just product is
2:51
expensive, I would rather pay less for a
2:54
product than pay
2:55
>> It is
2:56
kind of That's kind of how we represent
2:58
these conversations, right? When a when
2:59
a Nintendo Switch 2 game is $80, we go,
3:02
"Oh, that's bad because I would rather
3:04
pay less for it." Which
3:06
>> Yeah, we would rather pay less for
3:09
anything than Yeah, than pay more. And I
3:11
guess to me what I'm sensing now when I
3:14
see this conversation pop up is this
3:17
particular brand of anxiety that what I
3:19
have identified is
3:21
I think people
3:22
in our space, hardcore gamers, have
3:25
largely resigned themselves to paying
3:28
whatever the cost of a PS6 is. And
3:31
there's this internal dissonance, this
3:33
pain of knowing knowing
3:36
you have signed up to pay whatever it is
3:39
so that when they reveal that it's
3:41
$1,000, $1,100, $1,200, it it it feels
3:45
worse and worse because you know
3:46
whatever that number is, it's gone.
3:48
>> Cuz it's it's that thing like that we've
3:50
seen over and over again. We could
3:51
talked about this a little bit. I think
3:52
in our bonus episode from last week at
3:55
patreon.com/critical error, you can join
3:57
for $5 and get that bonus episode and
3:59
all the bonus episodes for that matter.
4:00
But, this this idea of like complaining
4:02
about a thing and then sort of maybe
4:04
turning around and still going like,
4:05
"Yeah, but I am still going to buy it."
4:06
Right? And and I think that's how a lot
4:08
of people feel with these increasing
4:10
price the increasing price of hardware,
4:12
right? PlayStation 6 is going to be
4:15
$1,100 maybe, $1,000, $900, something
4:18
ridiculous, certainly.
4:20
But, people people people are still
4:21
going to buy it cuz they're like, "Well,
4:22
I have to." And I think that's what the
4:23
anxiety is and that's what the fear is
4:25
that there's this feeling of like,
4:26
"Well, I must. I absolutely must."
4:30
And I we've seen this I mean, even with
4:32
the way that people are talking about
4:32
the Steam Machine. Is it called the
4:34
Steam Machine?
4:36
>> Yes.
4:37
>> Um with the Steam Machine, is it's like
4:40
everyone has been like groaning and
4:42
moaning waiting for them to reveal what
4:44
the price is. And now that they have, it
4:46
has just sort of been like, "Well, [ __ ]
4:49
I guess now I got to find $1,000 to have
4:51
this thing." And I might posit you don't
4:54
need it, but
4:55
>> I think that like the question of value
4:59
is is really like an interesting one
5:00
because it comes up in games a lot.
5:02
Because so much of our gaming landscape
5:04
is interested in this existential
5:07
question of is it worth your money,
5:09
which is like an impossible thing to say
5:11
for everyone, you know, and we know
5:13
that. We don't need to re-tread this
5:14
ground of a dollar to you versus a
5:16
dollar to me. Who could possibly say?
5:19
Like, we don't need to you know. And you
5:21
see this in the micro with something
5:23
like the Starfox remake that's coming
5:25
out this week where people say, "Is it
5:28
really worth $50 for a game that's a
5:30
remake?" Yada yada yada.
5:33
Um and then now you see it with
5:34
something as high-end as the Steam
5:36
Machine. And here's here's a question
5:39
for the audience.
5:40
How much did you pay for your Nintendo
5:42
Switch 2? $450, $500, right? Depending
5:45
on which one you got.
5:47
>> Do you feel, honestly, that the value of
5:50
that system is in perfect alignment with
5:53
the price you paid for it? And I think
5:55
that this is maybe a more interesting
5:57
question to me than it might appear on
5:58
the surface because I would tell you,
6:00
Peter, that
6:03
I actually get more value out of my
6:05
Switch 2 over time than that $500
6:09
accounts for. And as the months go on,
6:11
as I play more games on it, I would say
6:14
that the value of my Switch 2 has easily
6:17
far eclipsed that initial $500 price
6:19
point that I put forward to buy into
6:22
that, right?
6:22
>> to feel that way about consoles in
6:24
general. And And this is This is not
6:26
referring to the, you know, potential
6:28
super high price of whatever the next
6:29
gen stuff is or the Steam Machine or
6:31
whatever. Cuz if I got the Steam Machine
6:33
for $1,000, would I find that to be
6:35
worth it over time? Probably not, just
6:37
given my gaming habits. But I think
6:40
about like the PlayStation 5. That was
6:41
500 bucks, I think. I got it at launch.
6:44
And I do think that I've gotten that
6:45
value out of it. I do. I feel the same
6:47
way about the Switch 2. It's It's even,
6:49
you know, younger than the PS5, but I do
6:51
feel like I've gotten the value out of
6:52
it.
6:53
But I'm curious, man. I'm really
6:55
curious. When the PlayStation 6 comes
6:57
out and it has what Again, I think we're
6:59
just assuming it's going to be a
7:01
ludicrous price just based on the price
7:03
of gaming hardware in general and and
7:04
the way that um,
7:05
you know, OS chips have have skyrocketed
7:08
in price and and all of that.
7:10
All of these people are going to get it
7:11
for free.
7:13
Right? These These websites are going to
7:14
get it for free. Influencers are going
7:15
to get it for free. And then at the end
7:17
of those reviews, those console reviews,
7:19
before they come out, there is going to
7:20
be that question. But is it worth
7:23
$1,000?
7:25
>> Right?
7:25
>> Is there going to be anyone who says no?
7:27
I'm curious.
7:28
Do you think?
7:30
Cuz here's what I Here's what I see.
7:32
It's going to be like, "Listen.
7:35
$1,000 is a high price.
7:38
But
7:40
yes, when you compare directly to the
7:43
PlayStation 5 and even the PlayStation 5
7:45
Pro, you can see that one is clearly
7:47
superior. It loads 0.5 seconds faster.
7:51
It has
7:51
>> I believe the answer is the PS5 in this
7:53
scenario, correct?
7:55
>> [laughter]
7:56
>> I I think this in this particular
7:57
scenario comparing the Steam Machine to
7:59
the PS5, I believe the PS5
8:01
>> I think it beats it, right?
8:02
>> this. Okay.
8:03
>> Yeah, but when but when you know, the
8:04
PS6 and and they're saying like is it
8:06
worth it? I think it's going to be like,
8:08
well, of course it's expensive, but it
8:10
is the best console on the market. And
8:12
it's like does that is that really how
8:14
we're going to like look at how worth it
8:17
is?
8:18
>> Can I tell you something about the the
8:19
kind of our our valuation of the Steam
8:21
Machine? You know, first allow me to
8:23
somebody in the Discord actually a
8:25
patron supporting member, I believe it
8:27
was Conor Trueov had posted in the
8:29
Discord that that they had just read one
8:32
of my favorite novels, The Picture of
8:33
Dorian Gray.
8:35
And there's a line in the Picture of
8:36
Dorian Gray. It's nowadays
8:39
people know the price of everything and
8:41
the value of nothing.
8:44
And that's how I feel when we talk about
8:47
the this hardware. We can do this
8:49
mathematical equation of all of the
8:52
components. We can imagine an additive
8:54
cost that we ascribe entirely to the
8:58
raised cost of components thanks to the
9:01
the AI crisis, and we can kind of like
9:04
tell you the price of stuff, but when it
9:07
comes to value, we have a much harder
9:09
time communicating that because I think
9:11
it's an unsafe position to be in. It's
9:13
one where you have to as an individual
9:15
have a perspective. So,
9:18
>> Yeah, yeah.
9:18
>> bring this to the Steam Machine, I think
9:20
I think the Steam Machine is like a
9:23
fascinating product because from a value
9:26
point of view,
9:28
I cannot square this circle, truly.
9:31
Because what I see when I look at the
9:33
Steam Machine
9:35
is something is a product of which the
9:37
value is almost entirely imagined. It is
9:41
a machine capable of hooking up to your
9:44
TV and playing a bunch of games that you
9:47
probably already have access to, okay?
9:50
And the the value of it is playing them
9:54
in with the comfort and the ease of like
9:57
a normal video game console, right? That
9:59
is the promise of the Steam Machine is
10:00
that it's not a PC. And
10:03
is the here's the thing. If you wanted
10:05
to put a PC together that was capable of
10:07
gaming the way that the Steam Machine
10:08
was, that is possible. If you wanted to
10:11
beam your games over to your TV from
10:14
your PC, that is also possible.
10:16
Unlike an emulation handheld like the
10:18
AYN Thor which offers a gimmick or a
10:21
novelty like the dual screens that
10:24
alters your experience of playing a
10:25
game, you know, if I wanted to emulate a
10:27
DS game on my PC, it would be
10:29
fundamentally different than emulating
10:30
it on my AYN Thor, correct?
10:33
Right.
10:34
So, really I think that the Steam
10:37
Machine's value is kind of that um
10:41
accessibility, let's call it, to the
10:44
couch experience with these PC games.
10:47
But, the truth is is that you could
10:49
replicate that ex- accessibility if you
10:51
really wanted to. So, I think who this
10:53
machine appeals to more than anyone else
10:56
is this person who kind of wants this
10:59
relationship with PC gaming that doesn't
11:02
really exist. This like I can pretend
11:05
>> that it is trying to create a new
11:07
relationship, which is fine cuz you can
11:08
want that if you want, but then when it
11:10
comes back to the question of like
11:11
value, it's like, but is creating that
11:13
value worth the thousand dollars? I
11:15
mean,
11:16
>> Well, I think what the the value that
11:17
they're chasing is the value of a
11:20
PlayStation.
11:21
>> Right, you know, correct. YEAH, YEAH.
11:22
NO, LIKE I HEAR ALL OF THE THINGS THAT
11:24
LIKE someone could want and I go, "Yeah,
11:26
YEAH, NO, I KNOW ALL THAT." And I cuz I
11:28
I want that. And I have it and it's my
11:30
PlayStation 5.
11:33
>> And that's thing and then but then you
11:34
go, but Jake all of the games on Steam
11:36
that are not available on a PlayStation
11:37
5 and I go, I hear you dog. I hear you.
11:40
I think a lot of those games that are on
11:41
Steam that are not on PlayStation 5 are
11:43
not kind of the triple-A top of the
11:46
line. Would you agree that that's an
11:48
accurate assessment?
11:49
>> and it's it's about like it's talking
11:51
about value, right? I love I love
11:53
Pikmin. I love Pikmin. It's one of my
11:55
favorite games of last year.
11:57
I play it all the time with my friends
11:59
still.
12:00
Would I feel the same way if it cost me
12:02
1,000 United States dollars to play on
12:05
my couch? No, no. And it's great. It's
12:08
great. It's so good, but yeah, I know.
12:09
>> If you said if you said, my goal is I
12:12
want to play Pikmin and games like
12:14
Pikmin Pikmin on my couch and the
12:16
solution that you came up with was I
12:18
need to buy the $1,000 Steam machine,
12:21
then I would say, you have made A
12:23
MISTAKE, [laughter]
12:24
SIR.
12:25
>> WELL, AND YOU KNOW WHAT'S SO
12:26
INTERESTING, TOO, is today as we are
12:28
recording this,
12:30
uh was the day that they announced,
12:31
"Hey, Grand Theft Auto 6 costs $80,
12:34
right?" It's 80 bucks.
12:35
>> Right.
12:36
>> And the deluxe edition is $100. And a
12:39
lot of people are are are upset about
12:40
this. And
12:42
>> Wait, really?
12:43
>> What? That they're upset about it?
12:45
>> Yeah, wait, why?
12:46
>> Because it's more. Because it costs
12:48
more.
12:48
>> Because it's more
12:49
>> and I understand. I do understand. I
12:51
completely understand because I
12:55
am probably not going to buy this game
12:57
when it comes out at that price point.
13:00
Just given the fact that $80, you know,
13:02
plus tax, so now we're closer to 90,
13:04
which is basically just 100 bucks.
13:06
That's a lot of money. It's a lot of
13:07
money. And and for
13:09
I mean, is anyone in a good financial
13:10
place right now? Like a really, really
13:12
great financial place where they can
13:13
just drop 100 bucks and have it be like
13:15
whatever? Not really, right? So, for me,
13:19
I'm kind of uninterested in in playing
13:20
that. That said,
13:22
when we talk about value, I think about
13:24
the fact that like
13:26
if Breath of the if Breath of the Wild
13:27
or Tears of the Kingdom cost 80 bucks as
13:29
you know Nintendo raised the price on
13:30
their games on some of their games last
13:32
year,
13:33
would I say it's not worth it for those
13:35
games?
13:36
I might not. I might say it is based on
13:39
>> Mario Kart World launched at $80.
13:41
>> Uh and and so the question is like are
13:43
those experiences worth $80? And of
13:45
course it's up to each individual person
13:47
to discuss value, but for me I think
13:48
about like if Breath of the Wild was 80
13:50
bucks at launch and I played it for $80,
13:52
I would probably say yes that was worth
13:53
it for me.
13:55
And so like I understand I understand
13:57
not wanting to pay more. I really really
13:59
do. But when we talk about value, I just
14:00
think it is
14:01
um
14:02
really interesting that is so often
14:03
value gets just like completely smooshed
14:05
into price. And I understand how there
14:07
is a relationship there and how it is
14:08
like a similar sort of conversation, but
14:10
people play play GTA V for
14:12
thousands of hours over the course of 15
14:15
years or I guess 13 years rather.
14:17
And and I understand how that might be
14:20
daunting, but I also sort of look at it
14:21
and go well, I don't know. Is that worth
14:23
80 bucks to you?
14:24
Maybe it is.
14:25
>> And even divesting from the idea of
14:28
dollars into uh time spent, right? There
14:32
is you can have a surely there exists
14:35
for someone a 2-hour experience that is
14:38
worth $100.
14:40
>> I've paid more to go to Six Flags with
14:42
my wife and had a great time.
14:45
>> A show on Broadway.
14:47
>> Yeah.
14:47
>> Um and so I think sometimes our
14:49
conversations about gaming are thrown a
14:53
little bit out of whack when it comes
14:55
into value because the truth is is that
14:58
you could maybe like
15:00
pick apart any person's finances and
15:04
find that the dollar to value of of
15:08
video games is actually quite good.
15:10
>> also like if you pulled up my credit
15:12
card statement and like made me go one
15:14
by one and say like Peter, really? I
15:16
would you know like I it's indefensible.
15:18
Like the things I've [laughter] spent
15:19
money on that like for less than for
15:21
more and whatever. And I also I like I I
15:23
think we've made it clear but I just
15:24
want to like restate here that this is
15:26
not like a defense of the increasing
15:29
prices, right? We we've talked about
15:30
before and and on this episode and I'm
15:33
sure talk about it again like we're not
15:34
we're not sitting here being like oh
15:35
this is good because we understand it
15:37
and because we understand how value
15:39
works. That's that's not what we're
15:40
saying. It's just more about like people
15:42
get so hung up on the prices of things
15:44
and like don't really like ask
15:45
themselves at least at least it seems to
15:47
me
15:49
what it's actually going to give them,
15:50
what the value that they're getting out
15:51
of it is.
15:53
>> And I of course know that you spent
15:54
$4,300 on Animal Crossing amiibo.
15:57
>> I did. I did and that's serious and
15:59
real. They're all
16:01
>> [laughter]
16:03
>> They're all back there. Yeah, so I I
16:05
know that that's been causing issues for
16:06
you and Teresa.
16:07
>> can't figure out how to balance my life.
16:09
>> I know it's hard. It's hard.
16:11
But yeah, I I do think that that as the
16:15
So you know, we like to talk about how
16:17
people talk about stuff in in this
16:19
gaming space and I think that because of
16:22
the more apparent economic pressures of
16:26
the time that we do live in, we
16:28
sometimes have this instinct to bring
16:32
that conversation almost wholesale into
16:34
games maybe in an uncritical way.
16:37
So something that I've observed is that
16:41
in any piece commenting on cost, I think
16:45
a trend in games writing as of late is
16:49
to maybe throw in a graph or two in
16:52
which the author kind of
16:55
gets gets effusively angry at the
17:00
AI CEO that has driven up the cost of
17:05
components that has then resulted in the
17:08
price of your thing being more expensive
17:11
than you think it should be.
17:14
And
17:15
I do wonder sometimes if this is making
17:19
a more uncritical consumer by accident.
17:23
>> Oh, okay.
17:24
>> To kind of Yeah, to kind of
17:27
um
17:28
draw this direct line between while the
17:31
price of the components went up and as
17:33
such as a consumer that makes the price
17:36
of the the object go up for me. And to
17:39
think that like
17:41
there is a fairness in the marketplace.
17:45
That like there's the true cost, the
17:47
fair cost that we were getting at the
17:49
beginning and now there's the unfair
17:51
cost
17:52
>> Yeah.
17:52
>> that is solely the result of this one
17:56
economic factor
17:57
>> we started at a place that was good to
17:59
begin with is is like well, yeah.
18:03
>> And there are many
18:05
so
18:06
societal and economic factors that if we
18:10
answered them
18:12
uh
18:12
that crisis actually wouldn't affect us
18:16
at all. Because if we were in a healthy
18:18
economy, then there could be a crisis
18:22
for components and prices could go up
18:25
and you and I and the average person
18:27
would go, "Well, that's actually not a
18:29
big deal." But the the real issue, I
18:31
think, is that people consumers have
18:34
less money in their pockets than ever.
18:37
People have heard me talk about this
18:38
again and again, but I think it it is
18:40
worth restating that
18:43
if we lived in a society in which we had
18:46
more money in our pockets, we would be
18:48
protected from this kind of economic
18:50
precarity that makes the price of these
18:53
things going up in the hundreds of
18:55
dollars not feel as devastating as it
18:58
actually is. Because the fact of the
19:00
matter is it is I think a sign of how
19:04
out of whack our economic situation is
19:06
that anybody feels any which way about a
19:09
video game becoming $10 more expensive.
19:12
Uh a video game console becoming a
19:14
couple hundred dollars more expensive.
19:16
That that is not the that is too small
19:19
of a difference for us to care about it
19:22
the way that we do right now. And
19:23
there's a problem there and the problem
19:25
is not just
19:27
the AI stuff driving up those prices.
19:29
It's
19:29
>> It's not good that for me if I had to
19:32
choose between Grand Theft Auto, it
19:34
would be the choice between Grand Theft
19:35
Auto and like groceries,
19:39
right? Like that's not a good the fact
19:41
that those are the two things that you
19:42
would have to choose between is is the
19:44
[ __ ] part. And like
19:46
yeah, it's not great that it's
19:47
expensive, but it's like the fact that
19:49
that is
19:50
those are the options
19:52
because they're the same price is is is
19:54
what the problem is, you know, and and
19:57
um
19:58
being forced to make a choice like that
20:00
sucks, but also for me it's a very
20:02
obvious choice. It's like, okay, well,
20:03
then I'm just not not getting Grand
20:05
Theft Auto if I have other things got to
20:06
pay for, but I don't know. I I I find
20:09
the um
20:10
the anxiety towards this like impending
20:14
next gen console to be really
20:15
fascinating though because of course we
20:18
don't know what the prices are of I
20:20
think can we just say it's the just the
20:21
PlayStation 6? Are we like comfortable
20:23
saying like, hey, Xbox is just not
20:24
making a console?
20:25
>> It's just the PlayStation 6. I'm Listen,
20:27
if there's if there's a next generation
20:28
Xbox, I'm going to say it's not
20:29
Microsoft's Xbox anymore.
20:31
>> Hey, I'm that feels right. Yes.
20:33
>> Yeah, so let's let's let's talk about
20:34
the PlayStation 6. This is how I this is
20:37
like what the rumors are. So I think it
20:38
is the most tangible conversation. And
20:41
Peter, I maybe I'm crazy. Maybe I'm
20:43
completely out of my mind, but when we
20:45
talk about anxiety about the PlayStation
20:47
6, um
20:50
do you feel really
20:53
that if it is so precarious, if it is so
20:56
hard to sell this console, if there are
20:57
so few people willing to buy into a next
21:00
generation console, do you think with
21:02
that all that in mind Sony PlayStation
21:05
is going to put out a console that has
21:07
all of these exclusive games that all of
21:10
that Do you Do you get what I'm saying
21:11
here?
21:12
>> cuz that's that's how I feel about like
21:14
when did they stop doing PS4 PS5 games,
21:17
right? Like
21:18
>> They haven't.
21:18
>> But I'm But I'm saying is like they did
21:20
stop. I think with Spider-Man 2 was like
21:22
the game where they were like this is
21:23
not coming out on the PlayStation 4. And
21:25
then all of their exclusives since then
21:27
haven't uh for the most part.
21:30
But
21:31
I think that they are going to look at
21:33
how many people buy the PlayStation 6.
21:35
And they're like there's a 100% going to
21:37
be fewer of those than the people who
21:39
bought the PS5 if the price is as high
21:41
as it's as it's rumored to be.
21:43
Oh, yeah. I think that they would be
21:45
very foolish to say, well, we're only
21:46
going to cater to those. People might as
21:48
well just, you know, absolutely shrink
21:50
our uh our target audiences because it
21:53
just doesn't make sense. And so I
21:54
understand the want to get the next
21:56
biggest thing, whatever, cuz of course
21:57
it'll look better, I'm sure. But like
21:59
it's probably an imperceptible ways,
22:01
first of all. And second of all, I just
22:03
think like it would be really foolish if
22:06
Sony just fully stopped supporting its
22:08
consoles.
22:10
I mean
22:12
>> Yeah.
22:12
>> Let's Let's be clear. The PlayStation 6
22:15
is a PlayStation It's going to be a
22:16
PlayStation 5 Pro with different
22:19
branding. Like these these machines are
22:22
not going to be fundamentally different
22:24
in in a way that like I think maybe it's
22:26
part of what's going on here with the
22:27
anxiety about the next generation is
22:29
that people are maybe psychically
22:31
captured by how console generations have
22:35
been years ago, how there is like this
22:38
um
22:38
>> step that you that was like oh, well,
22:40
the PlayStation 1 to the PlayStation 2
22:41
is like
22:43
You're not even going to believe this,
22:44
right?
22:45
But yeah, 100%.
22:46
>> And I would even say that a lot of like
22:49
hardcore video games people would say
22:51
that something that they want out of a
22:53
new generation is to feel like
22:56
>> that step
22:56
>> a extremely perceptible this one's over,
23:00
this one begins, which I think is out of
23:02
touch with how video games are nowadays.
23:05
Something I see talked about a lot with
23:06
the Nintendo Switch 2 is like, "Oh, it
23:08
just feels like the sequel to the
23:10
Nintendo Switch." And I'm like,
23:12
>> Yeah, that's what it is now. That's what
23:14
>> [laughter]
23:15
>> Uh you know, and and I think to to kind
23:18
of want a more material demarcation is
23:22
maybe to want like a thing that gamers
23:24
will also tell you that they don't want,
23:26
which is like some kind of gimmick.
23:27
>> Yeah.
23:27
>> Now
23:29
Now, here's the here's the other thing
23:30
about the rumor with the PlayStation 6
23:31
is that it will feature some kind of
23:34
switch-like functionality. Maybe Maybe
23:36
there is a handout. So, but but again, I
23:39
think in terms of the value proposition
23:41
and what people are so afraid of is are
23:43
you now afraid of being left in the dust
23:46
of
23:48
being able to play your games not on the
23:51
TV? Is that what you're afraid of being
23:53
>> You see, you know what it also might be?
23:55
Because it's like there's been the rumor
23:56
that yeah, there's there's maybe a
23:57
handheld component to it or maybe that
24:00
there's two models. That there's like
24:02
the main beefy this is the PlayStation 6
24:05
and then maybe there's the PlayStation 6
24:07
B, right? That's like cheaper, more
24:10
affordable, whatever.
24:12
>> I actually kind of like that name.
24:14
>> PlayStation 6 B?
24:15
>> I think that's kind of cute, actually.
24:17
>> Sony?
24:18
That'll be $8,000 if you want to use it.
24:20
>> Because because I think that the
24:21
instinct is to do PlayStation 6 P.
24:24
>> Oh, sure.
24:26
>> PlayStation 6 portable?
24:27
But I But the turning the V up the P
24:30
upside down and making it a B, there's
24:32
something about that.
24:33
>> Yeah, okay.
24:34
>> But
24:35
>> Yeah.
24:35
>> So, like okay, let's say they launch one
24:36
at $400 and they launch one at $1,000
24:39
and it's just the difference between
24:40
these two things.
24:41
I still think that anxiety exists
24:43
because I think that people don't like
24:45
to buy what they view as an inferior
24:47
product because they have to.
24:49
>> Oh, sure. Of course.
24:50
>> even if it's like
24:52
I can only afford the PlayStation 6 B,
24:55
but you have the PlayStation 6 that you
24:57
can play on your TV or that it's like
24:58
the best whatever. I don't know what the
25:00
difference would be.
25:01
>> The the alpha versus the beta.
25:04
>> Is I think I'm still feeling the anxiety
25:07
cuz I'm like, well, I had to settle on
25:09
the shitty one. You know, like the
25:10
shitty one. Even though it's like the
25:12
brand new console or whatever.
25:14
>> That's okay.
25:16
I actually think that this is kind of
25:17
interesting because to me what this
25:18
points to is this maybe fundamental like
25:23
heart and mind understanding of video
25:25
games as something that nowadays, and
25:28
this was not the case before, but now
25:30
more than ever are scalable, right? So,
25:33
you have a version of a game running on
25:37
the PS5 Pro, and then you have the same
25:38
version of that game running on the
25:40
Switch 2.
25:41
Or like a different version of that same
25:42
game, rather.
25:44
And
25:45
because
25:47
video game consoles have kind of
25:48
coalesced into this PC architecture and
25:50
they are so similar, games now are made
25:54
in a way where it's like, well, we want
25:55
to be able to support the highest end of
25:57
PCs, but we also want to be able to
25:58
support the Steam Deck or even the
26:00
Switch 2. So, you have these lighter
26:02
weight versions of games are running.
26:04
And it's what you said. It's that
26:06
anxiety over knowing that there is a
26:09
better version of the game out there.
26:11
And I almost feel like we need to go
26:14
through
26:15
a gamer re-education camp.
26:18
>> Yeah.
26:18
>> And like about like how important that
26:22
those like performance and fidelity
26:24
things are. And I almost wonder if
26:27
the Switch 2 could serve as a tool. Like
26:30
I force the people to play and
26:31
>> Like play pragmatic on there.
26:33
>> Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly. Force
26:35
people to play these games on Switch 2
26:37
and realize that they're not missing as
26:39
much as they think they are.
26:41
>> I think this actually happened with a
26:42
friend of mine. He played He got that
26:45
Resident Evil pack where it's
26:49
7 8 9 all like on the Switch and it was
26:51
for like what, like $80, which is like
26:53
awesome.
26:54
Um
26:55
and uh you know what's so funny though?
26:58
I'm so sorry, not to interrupt my own
26:59
story here, but like $80 or maybe it was
27:01
$90, let's say, for those three games we
27:04
view as like, well, that's for sure 100%
27:06
worth it. But we're talking about again,
27:08
back to the value of like Grand Theft
27:09
Auto 6, which is if you played would
27:11
certainly last you much, much longer
27:13
than those three Resident Evil games
27:15
which are like
27:16
6 to 10 hours each. I don't know. I just
27:18
it's just something maybe there's
27:20
something there. Anyway, but he played
27:22
it on he was like, I'm making a
27:23
concession, but it's for the deal.
27:25
>> And he played it and he had a great
27:26
time. And it's like of course he did cuz
27:28
it's it's the switch too is great, first
27:31
of all, but second of all,
27:33
I think good games hold up regardless of
27:35
how you play them, regardless of how
27:37
clean the fidelity is and with how crisp
27:40
those visuals are, how fast the loading
27:42
times are. And it's like of course
27:43
there's things that you are not going to
27:45
want to put up with if they are bad
27:47
enough. But at the end of the day,
27:49
you got to play the game and the game
27:50
was good, so.
27:52
>> Hell yeah.
27:53
Uh I
27:54
and it's it's funny too. I think that
27:56
like the
27:58
knowledge and appreciation of how
28:00
scalable these games are should serve as
28:03
a kind of salve for the anxiety that
28:06
gamers feel. Because if you can be
28:09
assured that
28:11
you are going to be able to play these
28:13
games, surely so many of you have
28:15
already made your peace with having a
28:17
PlayStation 5 as opposed to a
28:19
PlayStation 5 Pro.
28:20
>> Right.
28:21
>> That if you've made that peace, I think
28:23
you can make the same peace with the
28:25
with the PS6. Um
28:27
and then here's the thing, if you can't
28:28
make that peace, if you say to yourself,
28:31
I just feel too bad about what I'm
28:33
missing out on, then
28:35
I hate to tell you this, but I think
28:37
that the PlayStation 6 might be worth it
28:39
to you.
28:40
>> Right. We're actually getting into the
28:41
turns into the value again, right? And
28:43
it's like, oh, well, then sounds like
28:45
if if yeah, if you can't make your peace
28:46
with that, if not okay with that, then
28:48
Yeah, it's worth it. You've You've
28:49
defined That's what the worth is. And
28:52
I I understand then being, you know,
28:54
still irritated that, "Hey, a thousand
28:56
dollars or whatever it would cost is
28:57
still a lot of money." But at the end of
28:59
the day, you have decided that that is
29:02
worth it at the end of the day.
29:04
>> Right.
29:05
>> I don't know. I think there's something
29:07
to that. I do. I really do.
29:08
>> I Yeah.
29:10
I guess I guess like
29:12
is there any hope for the future?
29:14
>> No.
29:14
>> Oh, sorry. What's that?
29:15
>> Okay.
29:16
>> I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm just
29:17
>> no, no. You're right. You're right. So,
29:19
so I guess like something that I I guess
29:21
I just want to make clear to the
29:22
listener is that
29:25
I am not trying to strike out and say
29:28
anytime that somebody talks about value
29:31
in their written pieces or whatever, it
29:33
is it is for naught. Because I think
29:35
ultimately something that I think maybe
29:37
I could do a better job of acknowledging
29:39
in my criticism is that
29:43
a lot of websites or whatever are have
29:45
material needs, and you need to talk
29:47
about what is on people's minds, and you
29:49
need to do whatever it takes to get
29:52
people on that landing page, right? And
29:55
ultimately, if you are serving the needs
29:57
the material needs of your job by just
30:00
kind of expressing economic anxiety,
30:04
I think that that is fine at the end of
30:06
the day. I think that my call to action
30:08
would be I think we can maybe be more
30:10
well-rounded in our assessment of that
30:13
economic anxiety
30:14
>> Yes.
30:14
>> rather than just kind of placing it at
30:17
the feet of "How dare Nintendo make this
30:20
game $10 $10 more or $10 less than I
30:22
wanted it to be. How dare this company
30:24
make this price this." And then I think
30:27
there is a worthwhile conversation to
30:29
have about
30:32
how we do this in reviews. I mean,
30:35
hardware reviews are already so weird,
30:39
man. So weird. We're reviewing these
30:42
things the same way that you would
30:43
review a washing machine. And then
30:45
there's this
30:47
And and maybe maybe the listener doesn't
30:49
know what I what I mean when I say that,
30:50
right? I think um
30:52
if you imagine going to a website and
30:55
looking up a review for a toaster or a
30:57
washing machine or something like that,
30:59
an appliance, what you can do in that
31:01
situation, because it is not a
31:03
storytelling medium, because it is not
31:05
an artistic medium, because it is an
31:06
objective medium, is that you can create
31:09
a chart
31:10
>> Mhm.
31:10
>> where you say, "Here is the washing
31:12
machine that is $100 more expensive.
31:14
Here is the one that is $100 less
31:16
expensive." And you see
31:17
>> Here's what you get.
31:18
>> Oh, the fea- the feature list and what
31:20
it does, objectively. There is no
31:22
question of this. So
31:25
there is a degree to which I think we
31:27
try to do this with our video game
31:29
hardware as well. You line up the
31:31
components. You put everything next to
31:33
each other. It's capable of 4K output at
31:35
this blah blah blah blah blah. But is
31:38
that the entire story of the value of
31:41
that device? No.
31:43
>> Right.
31:43
>> And why is that? Because people will be
31:45
using it differently. Because everybody
31:46
will have a different relationship to
31:48
it. Whereas I think my relationship with
31:50
my washing machine is probably very
31:52
similar to the relationship you have
31:53
with your washing machine. Okay. So
31:57
it does kind of There is a part of me
32:00
that
32:01
sometimes feels
32:03
talking about the price at all in some
32:06
of these reviews
32:07
is a little odd. For hard- But I have to
32:09
be realistic.
32:10
>> Okay.
32:11
>> Yes.
32:12
But then I have to be realistic and I
32:13
have to say, "But there needs to be that
32:16
kind of review." Yeah. It needs to
32:18
exist. Not not every hardware review
32:21
needs to be that, but I think um
32:24
some of these hardware reviews should
32:26
maybe recognize that they are reviewing
32:28
a washing machine AND JUST DO THAT. AND
32:31
JUST JUST REVIEW IT LIKE THAT. And then
32:33
it's easy.
32:34
>> It's interesting because you sort of
32:35
like um
32:37
you know, we we've talked about how like
32:39
on this show a lot we talk about how
32:41
there is that intersection and conflict
32:43
between talking about games as products
32:45
and talking about them as as works of
32:46
art in reviews and how
32:49
>> Right.
32:49
>> that intersection is very strange and
32:53
the fact that that intersection still
32:54
exists in so many reviews makes their it
32:57
makes them feel like this very odd sort
33:00
of conflict between how we are like
33:02
quantifying these things. But then when
33:04
it comes to consoles I think we've just
33:06
like fully for me like careened into
33:09
this is a product review because I like
33:12
and that's what I look for out of a
33:13
console review and obviously people want
33:15
different things, but like for me I am
33:17
looking for that price discussion. And
33:18
and because I'm curious. I'm curious
33:20
about like how does this measure up to
33:22
something of a similar price or things
33:24
that we've had in the past because I
33:26
think it does sort of uh
33:30
it tells me something
33:31
but I get frustrated with the way that
33:34
these things talk about price and value
33:36
with these reviews talk about price and
33:37
value because for the most part they are
33:39
purchased uh they are uh given to them,
33:42
right? And I'm that's not like a huge
33:44
critique of like the people who are
33:46
accepting and talking about it, but it
33:48
is a critique of maybe the industry,
33:49
right? How can someone who if I was
33:52
gifted a PlayStation 5 Pro
33:55
how could I possibly talk about its
33:56
value? Because I didn't cost me
33:58
anything. There was no cost, so where's
34:00
the value, right? And I know these
34:01
aren't new conversations, but it is
34:03
frustrating on the
34:06
as we're sitting on the on the eve
34:07
almost of these new consoles. Yeah,
34:08
you're going to say something.
34:10
>> I like this point a lot.
34:12
Because imagine
34:14
>> buy it, so there's no cost, so there's
34:15
no value.
34:15
>> This used to be the case. Somebody
34:17
somebody in the Critical Error audience
34:18
made this point to me recently that
34:20
there was a time when they were working
34:22
in games media and the hardware for
34:24
review would be a lend, not a give.
34:27
>> Mhm.
34:28
>> And imagine now
34:30
>> interesting.
34:30
>> Imagine now asking the reviewer, "Hey,
34:33
you've had a week with this hardware.
34:35
You're giving it back.
34:38
Are you going to buy one?"
34:40
And that's kind of an interesting
34:42
question all of the sudden, right?
34:45
>> That's I actually find that to be a far
34:47
more compelling question than maybe like
34:49
any other framing that one could come
34:51
across. Because then like you really
34:54
know what you're missing out on and you
34:56
know whether or not that experience for
34:59
you is worth literally the value of it.
35:02
>> It's literally that.
35:03
>> Yeah.
35:03
>> That's so interesting. You know, cuz I
35:04
feel that way very, very lucky, of
35:06
course, to work the job I work and to we
35:09
get codes for free. And
35:11
>> For sure. We do Yeah, right.
35:12
>> something that that happens a lot in
35:14
conversations you and I have had and
35:15
maybe on the pod, maybe not, but is the
35:17
whole like, "Well, I would play this if
35:19
they gave it to me for free."
35:21
Which is how I feel about anything for
35:22
the most like really anything. I would
35:24
try it if I got it for free, of course,
35:27
but it does change that value then.
35:29
Because like something like that 007
35:30
game, even when I was liking it before
35:32
it it took the turn that it did for me,
35:35
I was never at a point where I was like,
35:37
"Yeah, I would have paid full price for
35:38
this."
35:39
>> Mhm.
35:39
>> Even though I was enjoying it. And so it
35:41
makes it difficult to talk about then
35:43
with other people because you're like,
35:45
"I don't I it's just
35:47
I didn't pay for it and so my
35:48
relationship with it is fundamentally
35:50
different. But then yeah, if you asked
35:52
me to pay for it, I would say, 'No, I
35:53
will not.'"
35:54
And so then I think that answers the
35:55
question, right?
35:58
>> It does and I almost feel that like I
36:01
guess I'd be curious to know from the
36:03
listener who is outside of it, who is
36:06
the consumer. I would be curious to know
36:09
if the value of that question hits you
36:12
the way it hits me. Is that something
36:14
that you would be interested in seeing?
36:16
This kind of like, "Okay, I'm putting
36:18
the review unit aside. Would I use this
36:21
amount of my own money to
36:24
>> That like
36:26
I would It's so crazy. I would put that
36:27
in maybe I I know who you're talking
36:29
about who did this, you know, in our
36:30
audience, but I like I would just do
36:32
that in the review, right? Have that be
36:34
your hook of of for your website, for
36:37
your hardware review.
36:38
>> I I believe I believe it was Critical
36:39
Error patron Mitch Dyer who used to work
36:41
in games media that that brought that up
36:43
to me about them being lended before,
36:46
which I had not even considered. So, it
36:48
was good data to have that that was the
36:49
case at some point.
36:50
>> I reviewed a projector for a website
36:52
once and they made me send it back.
36:54
>> Good.
36:54
>> And that was like a Yeah, I mean, it's
36:56
like I get it, you know, they're
36:57
expensive, whatever, but um
36:59
that really [snorts] did color the
37:01
review experience cuz it was like,
37:02
"Would you buy this?" I'm like, "Well,
37:03
it's $3,000, so
37:06
there's no reality in which I would buy
37:07
this, but
37:09
and then at that point I think it gets
37:11
even more tricky, right? About
37:14
I was reviewing something that I was
37:15
kind of out of my depth on.
37:17
>> I
37:18
I guess I'm I guess I'm just compelled
37:20
by this question of did you experience
37:23
something that you now fundamentally are
37:26
like, "I can't live
37:27
>> able to live without this.
37:29
>> I can't live without this." I I I guess
37:31
that just like titillates me in a way
37:33
that I'm curious if it hits other people
37:35
that way. I find that to be such a funny
37:37
like supposition. And then there are
37:40
some things where like
37:43
um
37:44
I'm I'm going to out myself as like a
37:45
bit of a weirdo to our listeners.
37:47
>> Go ahead.
37:48
>> Uh so like I'm receiving like a like a
37:51
code for Starfox.
37:54
>> Um
37:56
from Nintendo. So, I'm not paying for
37:57
that game.
38:00
I have also pre-ordered a physical copy
38:02
of that game because I want it. So, I I
38:04
just
38:04
>> So, I I just I want it, Peter. I want
38:06
it. Is that so wrong?
38:07
>> No, no, it's certainly not. No, no, no.
38:09
Cuz also I think um
38:11
hey, thanks for the code, Nintendo, or
38:12
whatever, but uh
38:14
I also think that there is something to
38:16
the idea of like, "But I have want this
38:17
because I want to have it as a part of
38:19
like a collection, you know?" And and I
38:21
don't think there's anything wrong with
38:22
that. I understand because it is I think
38:25
that would be if you tried to explain
38:26
that to anyone outside of the industry,
38:28
I think it who like anyone outside of
38:30
anyone who plays games, I think it would
38:31
be an insane thing to try and like
38:33
explain, but
38:34
>> Would you Would you allow me to cushion
38:36
my my reasoning for just one moment?
38:39
>> Okay.
38:40
I do tell myself that with two copies of
38:44
the game, I can now give a copy to my
38:47
older brother.
38:49
>> And we can play together.
38:50
>> Yeah, there you go.
38:51
Yeah, give him that physical copy and
38:52
>> not That's
38:54
Oh, no, no, no, Peter. No.
38:55
The digital I keep the physical copy.
38:57
>> Ah, I see. I see.
38:58
>> Yeah, yeah, yeah. The digital You You
39:00
know about the Switch 2 virtual cards.
39:01
>> Oh, I do know this, yes. And how that
39:04
>> just press a You just press a little
39:05
button and it shows up on and somebody
39:07
and that's that's right. An extremely
39:09
valuable function of the Nintendo Switch
39:10
2, the virtual cards.
39:11
>> really good. And it's like two They have
39:13
it for like 2 weeks and it goes back,
39:14
right? It's cool.
39:15
>> And then no, the whole thing. It's It's
39:17
delightful. And if you have your Switch
39:19
profile on somebody else's Switch as
39:21
well, because I go back and forth
39:22
between my brother and me's house all
39:23
the time and we play together, I can
39:25
just from my house send it to that
39:27
Switch 2 and then go over and we're
39:29
playing it there. There is no time
39:31
limit.
39:32
>> It's awesome. Not enough Not enough
39:34
love.
39:35
You know what it is? It There's just a
39:37
high enough barrier to understanding how
39:38
it works.
39:39
>> You know what's funny, too? In all of
39:41
the Switch 2 reviews and stuff like
39:42
that, and you know, we're talking about
39:43
like hardware reviews and and whatnot,
39:45
is is I think that the Switch 2 actually
39:47
doesn't get enough credit for sort of
39:49
what it's doing under the hood with this
39:50
sort of thing.
39:51
Uh do you remember when they they did
39:53
the reveal of the Switch 2 and then like
39:54
the second time they showed it off, the
39:57
first like
39:58
35 minutes of a 50-minute presentation
40:02
or whatever, like a significant portion
40:03
of it was devoted to these sorts of
40:05
things. And a lot of people were like,
40:08
"Boring. No games." It's not about the
40:10
games. And then in retrospect, it's
40:11
like, "No, no, they were showing off
40:12
like what was really actually cool and
40:13
unique about this hardware." Like no
40:15
other console is doing like no other
40:16
like you know, PlayStation 5 doesn't do
40:18
this, Xbox doesn't do this, the Switch 1
40:19
didn't do this. I don't know. I think
40:20
there's something to that and it's it's
40:22
kind of often overlooked in my opinion.
40:24
>> Okay, before we kind of transition into
40:27
the back of this podcast, since we've
40:29
gotten on this topic,
40:31
shout out.
40:33
I'm sick of everybody
40:35
talking about game chat and going
40:38
"Oh, but the frame rate of my friend's
40:40
games, this little size of the screen."
40:42
I'm sick of these complaints because
40:43
Peter,
40:44
this is just party chat, the way that it
40:47
exists on every other console with a
40:50
little bonus.
40:50
>> Yeah.
40:51
>> But you could you could completely
40:53
remove that and just have a normal
40:55
screen and just participate in party
40:57
chat. Why does this Why does the Switch
40:59
2's game chat get so unfairly maligned
41:02
for doing exactly what the other
41:03
consoles are doing, but more?
41:05
>> so funny too, the idea of like, "But the
41:07
frame rate on my friend's game that I'm
41:09
not playing is bad."
41:12
>> That's that I think should really shows
41:14
you how captured we are by those things,
41:15
right?
41:15
>> like we are like
41:17
>> The concept of frame rate is so
41:18
powerful.
41:19
>> It's not cuz it's not even like there's
41:21
no context in which apparently frame
41:23
rate could be ever understood as
41:25
anything other than, "But the number is
41:26
low." Because like regardless of what it
41:29
is doing and why they're doing it's
41:30
like, "Yeah, but but it's only 15
41:32
[snorts] frames a second on a game I'm
41:34
not playing." And like it doesn't
41:36
>> Low frames are bad.
41:37
>> Yeah, it doesn't matter. Like so mega
41:39
doesn't matter.
41:41
>> That's so awesome.
41:42
>> Can we Can we Can we Can we thank our
41:44
patrons?
41:45
>> Where from where?
41:48
>> From patreon.com/criticalerror.
41:50
>> Yes, of course. I would love to thank
41:52
the members of the Critical Error
41:54
Nation. These are people again at
41:57
patreon.com/criticalerror.
41:59
People who are subscribed at the $5
42:01
level, they're getting those bonus pods.
42:03
Today was a good bonus pod. We talked
42:04
about a lot of games today.
42:07
>> Yeah, I actually think that when we talk
42:09
about thanking the Critical Error
42:10
Nation, really we thank them every week
42:12
in the form of that bonus pod. But, um
42:15
what a fun discussion to have about
42:17
Fortnite, about um oh, we played that
42:21
Star Wars racing game at Summer Game
42:22
Fest, so we talk about that. What else
42:24
we talk about today?
42:25
>> Um what did we start with? You start You
42:27
had a game that you wanted to talk
42:28
about.
42:30
>> I just wanted to talk about my green
42:32
my green switch, too, that I like a lot.
42:35
Yeah, so I talked about this a little
42:36
bit. But, uh this is one of those This
42:38
is one of those bonus podcasts that I
42:39
feel like we were like moving a mile a
42:41
minute. Yeah, so much to
42:43
Yeah, covered a lot of ground. That's a
42:45
always a fun feeling.
42:46
>> Yeah. Yeah, so that's at
42:46
patreon.com/criticalerror.
42:48
That is for our $5 and up members.
42:52
Thanking the nation, however, would not
42:54
be complete if we did not give a very
42:55
special shout out to the members of the
42:57
Jake and Peter tier. These are the
42:58
people at the very top of our Patreon.
43:00
These are Andrew Bulkar, Evan Snee,
43:04
Mitch Dyer, that mentioned earlier, as
43:06
well, and Robert Quesada. Thank you so
43:09
much for supporting us financially. We
43:10
talk about it all the time. The reason
43:12
we were able to do all that Summer Game
43:13
Fest stuff was because of the support of
43:15
the nation. It really, really, really
43:18
means a lot to us. And also, here's the
43:20
thing. Here's the other part about being
43:22
a part of the nation.
43:23
Next week,
43:25
it's Critical Error summer break. Jake
43:27
and I aren't aren't around. We're on
43:28
vacation. We're [clears throat] on
43:30
vacation. So, we can't do a main
43:32
episode, but
43:35
do you think there's any Do you think
43:36
there's anything on the planet Earth
43:38
anything that's on the planet Earth
43:40
that's going to stop us from doing a
43:41
bonus pod for for the patrons? Not a
43:43
[ __ ] chance.
43:44
Be real. Come on.
43:45
>> And we've already made plans for some
43:47
things that we want to
43:48
>> Yeah.
43:48
>> do and talk about on the bonus pod for
43:51
next week. And I think it's going to I
43:53
think it's going to be a really fun one.
43:54
And uh we're for sure going to talk
43:56
about Star Fox. So, if you're interested
43:57
in Star Fox, you're going to want to
43:59
check out this bonus podcast. But, um
44:01
also, for the members of Critical Error
44:03
royalty, we've got to play the sound
44:06
that we play to thank them every week.
44:08
And I think that this one is going to be
44:10
expressed through the the pain and
44:12
anxiety of having to pay a high cost for
44:15
a console.
44:16
>> fair.
44:17
>> Play the sound.
44:17
>> Oh, thank you. Thank you to the members
44:21
of Critical Error Royalty and above.
44:23
Andrew Bull Card Ansel Trade of Seamus
44:26
Dyer, Mayberry Rubicon of Connor True of
44:28
Danny Disaster,
44:30
James Beer Jacob Richter, Jared Cusano
44:32
Cold Ramen, Greg Greg Greg Greg Greg,
44:35
>> [laughter and gasps]
44:35
>> Cole Cow Cow Shin Pinky Oats Thick Dick
44:38
Mystic, Alex Sims Nonexistent Mergle
44:40
Josh Day Robotzy, Jetson Plays Games
44:43
Barrick Courtney,
44:45
Marty Hess.
44:48
Thank you so much.
44:50
patreon.com/criticalerror. Peter, I got
44:51
a little bit of a conversation starter
44:52
for you for this week's
44:57
uh pre-written piece. You mind if I take
44:58
it away?
44:58
>> great cuz I'm going to be on vacation
45:00
having all sorts of conversations, so
45:02
please.
45:02
>> Okay.
45:05
Dear listener,
45:07
I have a question for you.
45:10
But before I ask it,
45:12
I need to try and place us on some
45:14
common ground.
45:17
Have you ever heard someone
45:19
dismiss a Marvel movie because it
45:23
just didn't really matter? Because in
45:25
the grand scheme of things, nothing
45:27
important happened in the architecture
45:29
of the cinematic universe it failed to
45:31
meaningfully shape
45:33
the greater context. A story experienced
45:36
through time becomes an argument about
45:39
consequence.
45:41
Have you ever participated in a
45:43
conversation about Fire Emblem?
45:45
A similar trajectory here. Three Houses,
45:48
for example, is frequently criticized
45:50
because every unit can eventually become
45:53
anything.
45:54
What fascinates me about this is the
45:56
vantage point it requires. To arrive
45:59
there, one must step outside the
46:01
100-hour process of teaching your
46:04
students, talking to them, nurturing
46:06
their strengths, compensating for their
46:08
weaknesses, building affection, making
46:11
mistakes in battle.
46:13
One must somehow hold the entire game in
46:16
their hands at once.
46:20
You know, Persona 4 revival got a new
46:21
trailer
46:23
at Summer Game Fest. People immediately
46:25
began comparing screenshots of
46:28
individual dialogue lines against the
46:31
original game's Japanese
46:34
before anyone had played the game,
46:35
before it seems had accumulated within
46:38
us.
46:39
Before those relationships turned into
46:41
feelings, a sentence became the object
46:44
of discussion because a sentence could
46:46
be isolated, examined,
46:49
and
46:50
adjudicated.
46:52
Even conversations about hardware are
46:54
touched by this impulse. The moment a
46:56
console's price is revealed, many people
46:59
begin constructing an account of value.
47:01
The machine is a ledger. What matters is
47:03
not the future experience of ownership,
47:06
but whether the final balance sheet
47:08
closes in our favor. I find myself
47:11
returning to these conversations because
47:12
they all seem to demand a peculiar feat
47:15
of perspective. They require us to stand
47:18
somewhere outside of experience itself.
47:21
There's a literary critic, Peter Brooks,
47:23
in Reading for the Plot. He argued that
47:26
narratives generate desire through
47:28
anticipation.
47:30
We seek retrospect. We crave the moment
47:33
when scattered details reveal a coherent
47:36
pattern. We just want to understand how
47:38
everything fits together. There is
47:40
nothing unusual about that impulse, but
47:42
what strikes me as strange is how often
47:45
video game discourse behaves as though
47:47
that retrospective view is the only one
47:50
worth having.
47:52
Games are, I think, unusual objects.
47:55
Their meaning generated through
47:56
sequence, through uncertainty and
47:58
duration. Nobody remembers though the
48:01
first hours of a beloved game because
48:03
they possessed complete information.
48:05
They remember them because they didn't.
48:08
They remember fumbling
48:10
through systems and mechanics whose
48:12
significance had not yet revealed
48:13
themselves. You might remember becoming
48:15
attached to characters before
48:17
understanding why. You might remember
48:19
those rare delirious hours when a game
48:21
still possesses the sumptuous mystery of
48:23
an unopened letter because what I'm
48:25
describing here is one of the great
48:27
pleasures available to us as human
48:29
beings. That singular and unrepeatable
48:32
instance when a work of art collides
48:34
with a person at a particular moment in
48:36
their life and produces something that
48:37
has never existed before. A reaction
48:40
inseparable from their memories and
48:42
desires and wounds and obsessions, a
48:44
feeling so extravagant and peculiar that
48:46
no translation audit, no character
48:48
ranking, no wiki entry, no consensus
48:51
ever quite manages to capture.
48:54
That experience is difficult to
48:55
summarize. It resists rankings. It does
48:58
not fit neatly into optimization guides
49:00
or translation audits or franchise
49:02
timelines and that is why we spend so
49:05
little time discussing it. And so, dear
49:07
reader, I am finally ready to ask you my
49:09
question.
49:12
What are you so afraid of?
49:14
What is so threatening about discussing
49:16
experience while it is unfolding? Why do
49:19
we seem so eager to exchange uncertainty
49:22
for mastery? Why does the conversation
49:24
keep rushing towards the complete build,
49:27
the definitive ranking, the final
49:29
verdict? Because I cannot shake the
49:31
suspicion that many of the things we
49:33
love most about games occur before
49:37
our understanding has stabilized.
49:40
The student still becoming the soldier.
49:44
The cast
49:45
is still becoming a group of friends.
49:48
The strategy
49:51
only instinct.
49:53
The game still becoming itself, yet so
49:55
much of our discourse is impatient with
49:56
all of that. We behave as though
49:58
understanding is the highest possible
50:00
relationship that one can have with a
50:01
work of art, and I am not convinced that
50:03
is true. In fact, I suspect that many
50:06
people are so eager to explain what a
50:08
game is because they are terrified of
50:11
admitting what it did to them.
50:13
And sometimes I wonder whether all this
50:15
talk of optimization and fidelity and
50:18
viability and objective quality and
50:20
canon is just a way of avoiding the far
50:24
riskier statement at the center of
50:26
criticism.
50:27
Here.
50:29
Right here.
50:30
Is what happened to me.
50:33
Thank you.
50:34
>> Mhm. Love this. I think this brings up a
50:36
really sort of interesting thing that
50:37
I've actually been chewing on lately.
50:39
I've been I've been re-watching
50:41
Seinfeld.
50:47
And
50:48
I don't know why.
50:51
>> [laughter]
50:51
>> I mean, like I really don't know why. I
50:52
think most of that the cast of that show
50:55
is like now it sits in my mind as like
50:57
villains in real life. And there's
50:59
something kind of like odd and sinister
51:02
about it. You know what I mean?
51:04
>> Yeah, sure. Sure. Sure. Sure.
51:05
>> it, and I I had this this thought, and
51:08
it was a it was a thought that
51:11
was like
51:12
I don't think they could make this
51:13
today. And now it's not because of the
51:15
way that people usually say that. Like I
51:17
saw what's his name from The Office was
51:18
like, "They could never make The Office
51:19
today. It's too politically incorrect."
51:21
I'm like, "No, that's not what I'm
51:22
[ __ ] talking about."
51:24
That stuff's in there, sure. But like
51:27
I mean, it's
51:28
everyone's like, "Oh, it's a show about
51:29
nothing."
51:31
And you're like, "Yeah, but it's about
51:32
like it's a show about mundanity." And
51:34
it's a And you could say like "Oh, well,
51:36
none of it matters." And you're like,
51:38
"Yeah, but it does." Right? Like
51:40
You were talking about the the Marvel
51:41
thing at the beginning of that and and
51:43
sort of throw out this idea of like,
51:44
"Well, it has to mean something. It has
51:46
to be this big thing. And it's like, I
51:47
it really doesn't. Really doesn't.
51:49
Because
51:50
if the only form of meaning that we can
51:53
get is something moving and it is is a a
51:56
the destination,
51:57
then like all we really care about then
51:59
is the end credit scene in a Marvel
52:01
movie, let's say. And then you didn't
52:03
actually care about the movie at all.
52:04
And so then who cares even about any of
52:06
it? And so like something like Seinfeld,
52:08
like watching that is just really
52:09
interesting because it's like
52:10
>> [snorts]
52:11
>> it's just people just talking about like
52:13
the super mundane parts of life,
52:16
but there's something to it that's
52:17
important.
52:19
Does that make sense?
52:20
>> Yeah, I think so. And I think like
52:24
there is like this
52:26
um
52:31
I guess to me,
52:32
I often see like I really like the
52:34
Persona series. And I see people
52:37
I see people talk about the Persona
52:39
games and say, "Well, this one had the
52:42
better cast."
52:43
Or like rank them that way.
52:46
And it is this kind of
52:49
discourse and discussion that I am so
52:52
curious about like what what is it about
52:54
fandom that makes people talk about
52:57
things this way? Because the fact of the
52:58
matter is is that when you play the
53:00
game, you don't have access to the
53:02
entirety of the cast from the moment you
53:04
start. You often don't have access to
53:06
that cast until tens or many more hours
53:09
>> Sometimes it's like they're adding
53:10
people to the cast and you have like 10
53:12
hours left.
53:13
>> There is like and people talk about it
53:16
as if
53:17
the cast is something that they can
53:19
remove from the game and judge the
53:22
experience of playing the game. And I I
53:24
guess I've just really been thinking
53:25
about this in terms of why this is um
53:31
Fire Emblem Engage, as we talked about
53:33
on the bonus podcast today, the story is
53:36
bad, but the gameplay is good. This
53:38
bird's eye view of talking about games
53:40
so that you can rank them, so that you
53:42
see the entirety of what they are, all
53:43
of their parts, completely divorced from
53:46
what that ride is, from what the journey
53:48
is of actually experiencing the game.
53:50
There's something there that I find like
53:53
so so like boring and and immaterial and
53:58
lacking in meaning that I think comes
54:00
from a place of fear, and I think my
54:02
real question is
54:04
which one of these things is the reason
54:06
why this happens? Is it one the fandom
54:09
are the people who spend so much time
54:11
with the game that the actual experience
54:13
of playing it gets so far removed from
54:15
them that they're actually more exper-
54:17
they actually are more familiar with
54:19
this kind of overview understanding of
54:22
it. I see the same thing with like
54:23
Pokémon for example, where it's like
54:25
this game is good because of all of the
54:27
options you have, and I'm like, but
54:30
but you don't ever make that many
54:32
choices in any one Pokémon game, so the
54:34
amount of options that you have is
54:35
actually meaningless because you only
54:38
experience that in the retrospect. So so
54:41
it's it's there's a kind of discussion.
54:43
I hope I don't sound like a crazy
54:44
person. I know exactly what I'm talking
54:46
about.
54:46
>> get it. Cuz what you just mentioned too,
54:48
like if you think about like, oh, this
54:50
ice cream shop is great because of all
54:51
the options, and you're like, well,
54:52
that's good, but I I ended up with two,
54:55
and so the experience of being able to
54:56
choose is fine, but like at the end of
54:58
the day what did I have?
55:00
Right? Is is that kind of where you're
55:01
at? Right?
55:02
>> That's exactly it. Yes, that's exactly
55:04
it.
55:04
>> is great. That's awesome. Like there's
55:06
nothing wrong with that, and it's good
55:07
in fact, but at the end of the day when
55:08
we're talking about like, well, what did
55:09
you have though?
55:11
It It's removed that a little bit.
55:13
>> Even with something This is so silly,
55:16
and I'm sorry to bring this into
55:17
everything, but even with something like
55:18
the Star Fox game revealed this week
55:21
>> huffing Star Fox gas.
55:23
I have never met anyone
55:26
>> [laughter]
55:26
>> who who is like more
55:29
I've never heard about a Star Fox in my
55:31
entire life more than I've heard about
55:33
it in the last like two and a half weeks
55:35
from you. I'm sorry, go on.
55:36
>> Because you cuz you know what it is, you
55:37
know what it is truly?
55:38
>> I think it's a I think it's like a
55:40
preview of how we're going to handle
55:42
conversations about Ocarina of Time.
55:44
>> Oh, it is. It is. It is. It is. Yes.
55:47
>> And there is this funny thing that
55:49
happens when when people talk about
55:50
Starfox where it's like, "Okay, I'm
55:52
reviewing this game.
55:53
I have the perspective of knowing that
55:56
this is a remake. I know in my mind. I
55:59
know it. And I can't have an experience
56:01
with this game that does not have this
56:05
kind of qualifier in it the entire time
56:08
in a way that holds me back from having
56:11
a you know, I don't know. There's just
56:13
like something about this
56:15
tonal distance that we take with games.
56:18
And And this is the other thing. So,
56:19
it's like is it that people in fandom
56:21
just spend so long on one thing that
56:23
that distance is understandable or is
56:25
there something about
56:27
online discussion that values the
56:30
master, that values the person who has
56:34
all of this information from the end
56:36
state of the game, that values seeing
56:38
all the parts, the lineage of a game.
56:40
You know what I'm saying?
56:41
>> I mean, I think it's obviously a little
56:42
bit of both. But in my experience, I
56:44
would say that the second thing there
56:45
that the master, the person who know the
56:47
lore person is like coveted above
56:50
everyone else. Cuz I like okay,
56:52
when I make videos about like games that
56:54
have like fandoms that are like really
56:55
really really about the lore. Like I
56:58
made a Bloodborne video like a year and
57:00
some change ago and I had to like do a
57:01
lot of work to make sure that hey, every
57:03
single detail on this is correct. Not
57:05
necessarily because it
57:07
mattered to what I was talking about,
57:08
but because I know that if I get a
57:10
detail wrong, like a single detail
57:12
wrong, people will look at that and be
57:13
like, "This is irrelevant and not worth
57:15
watching." And it's like so frustrating.
57:17
I did the same thing with Signalis,
57:18
which is even like I think more
57:20
difficult to understand in terms of like
57:22
what the A to B to C whatever is. And
57:24
like I was asking questions on the
57:25
subreddit and I was getting like berated
57:27
for asking a question about like an
57:29
interpretation.
57:30
And I was like, "This is like not a fun
57:33
way to like engage with this. But it's
57:34
just because it's like, well, if you get
57:35
one of these things wrong, people
57:37
automatically assume, regardless of the
57:38
context, it's kind of like the frame
57:39
rate thing we're talking about on the
57:41
Switch 2 thing. Where it's like, we've
57:43
just decided that lore above all else.
57:45
And it's regardless of the context that
57:47
lore is being used in, regardless of if
57:48
it is important that that lore is
57:50
correct or not. Like people just need
57:52
it, dude.
57:54
>> And this is why I think I'm compelled by
57:55
this this question towards the end of
57:57
what I wrote of like, what are you so
57:58
afraid of? And I because to be honest
58:01
with you,
58:02
when somebody is like reviewing Mario
58:04
Kart World and they're like
58:07
Yeah, but Mario Kart 8 Deluxe had way
58:09
more
58:10
tracks.
58:12
I'm like
58:13
that the what comes to mind for me is
58:15
like, what are you so afraid of? Like,
58:17
what are you so afraid of if you just
58:18
had to
58:19
Like, I I guess I just like don't
58:21
believe that anybody is like playing a
58:23
video game and meaningfully engaging
58:25
with it and in the back of their mind
58:27
going,
58:28
oh, but the last one had so much more
58:30
content. Like I I
58:31
I just don't believe it. I I found it to
58:33
be dishonest.
58:34
>> you can have that conversation, but I
58:36
think it needs to move further than just
58:38
like appraisal. Further than just saying
58:41
like, well, Mario Kart 8 had more
58:42
tracks. So, that's the superior one.
58:44
It's it cuz it's got to be more, right?
58:45
Because obviously, like they are
58:47
different games that are that are
58:49
accomplishing different things. And so,
58:51
if we are only looking at it as we were
58:53
talking about before, as like
58:55
a toaster review, where you're like,
58:56
well, this one has this this this. Well,
58:58
this other one has this this this this
58:59
this. Like, then we're just not going
59:01
anywhere with this medium and we're not
59:02
going anywhere with criticism and
59:04
talking about these sorts of things.
59:06
>> And so, I do ultimately think it comes
59:08
down to like a place of fear. Because
59:10
what happens when you default to the
59:13
most kind of knowledgeable or or like
59:17
most zoomed out perspective. I think
59:20
when you're when your scope increases
59:22
that much, I I do see it as like a a
59:25
mechanism. I see it as something that is
59:27
harder to argue with and harder to
59:28
disagree with.
59:30
>> to disagree with Mario Kart 8 has more
59:31
courses. You can't.
59:33
>> right, right.
59:34
>> But
59:34
>> So, I do wonder how many people are
59:36
knowingly doing this and how many people
59:38
are maybe unknowingly doing this because
59:41
they
59:42
are writing and there is that anxiety of
59:45
producing something that somebody could
59:46
disagree with. Whereas, I actually think
59:48
the best writing
59:50
uh the best criticism
59:52
is when meaning emerges from
59:54
conversation and that conversation has
59:56
to be started with a bold stance that
59:59
you know people will disagree with
1:00:02
because the point of writing anything is
1:00:04
not for people to agree with you. Um
1:00:06
which I do think is maybe like a larger
1:00:09
cultural beat that we found ourselves
1:00:10
in. I'm going to bring something in
1:00:11
that's crazy crazy right now, okay? Uh I
1:00:14
don't know how much our listenership is
1:00:16
familiar with
1:00:18
Goodreads.
1:00:19
>> I'm familiar with Goodreads.
1:00:21
>> Goodreads, okay.
1:00:23
A book review website a little
1:00:25
problematic, it's neither here nor
1:00:27
there, but uh
1:00:28
you would be shocked to to know maybe
1:00:31
that the current cultural beat when
1:00:33
you're reviewing a book from for the
1:00:34
mass audiences is essentially people
1:00:36
doing a relatability test. It's people
1:00:38
>> Elena, my wife got off Goodreads for I
1:00:41
mean this is years ago at this point
1:00:42
maybe 2 years ago, but left because
1:00:44
she's like I can't [ __ ] deal with it
1:00:46
anymore. I can't deal with the way
1:00:47
people talk on this thing. She uses a
1:00:48
different one, I don't remember what it
1:00:49
is, but like
1:00:50
>> Yeah.
1:00:51
>> Uh yes, so sorry, go on.
1:00:53
>> No, yeah, but it's just this thing where
1:00:54
you find people getting into the reviews
1:00:56
and saying this book is really good
1:00:59
because I relate to the main characters
1:01:01
or this book is really bad because I
1:01:04
found the character to be the main
1:01:06
character to be unlikable or
1:01:08
disagreeable or impossible for me to
1:01:10
relate to, which is maybe not the
1:01:12
entirety of where the value of reading
1:01:15
lies. And
1:01:18
there's just something about this that I
1:01:20
think is that is seeping in to more and
1:01:23
more of our entertainment and the way
1:01:25
that we regard entertainment than than
1:01:27
ever before.
1:01:28
>> me a little bit of the way that everyone
1:01:29
talked about like mixtape, right?
1:01:31
Uh because it felt like you were either
1:01:33
in one of two camps. Camp one is I was
1:01:35
exactly like these kids when I was in
1:01:37
high school and that makes it good. And
1:01:39
then camp two was I was nothing like
1:01:41
these kids and so it's bad. And I think
1:01:43
that what's interesting is it's like
1:01:45
both of those perspectives I think are
1:01:47
fine.
1:01:50
But at the end of the day we're not
1:01:51
talking about the game at anymore. We're
1:01:53
just talking about whether or not you
1:01:54
saw this person was like yep, this is
1:01:56
just how I like how I was. And I think
1:01:58
that then you start to get into this big
1:01:59
problem of like well now we're not
1:02:01
talking about it. And we like we're not
1:02:02
doing the work. Um because we're just
1:02:05
relying on relatability as the crutch to
1:02:07
just sort of like have this
1:02:08
conversation. When like that can be a
1:02:09
part of it but it needs to go deeper, it
1:02:11
needs to go further. Need more. Talk
1:02:12
about the characters as they are, I
1:02:13
don't know.
1:02:15
Remember mixtape?
1:02:16
>> Maybe one day.
1:02:17
No.
1:02:18
>> [laughter]
1:02:20
>> No.
1:02:22
It's gone.
1:02:22
>> It's done.
1:02:27
We're on vacation next week everyone.
1:02:29
Like and subscribe.
1:02:31
>> patreon.com/cracked layer
1:02:34
See you next time.