Fans have taken to the likes of X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok to question NetherRealm’s decision to market Mortal Kombat 1 as a $70 Switch release. It has been called “robbery” and “disrespectful” to users.

  • El Barto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I don’t like how many posts cater to outrage lately, true.

    But I don’t think this one is manufactured.

    • wahming@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, manufactured might have been the wrong word. Pointless? Uncalled for?

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        But why would it be pointless or uncalled for? $70 for a rather old game?

        Edit: I’ve been schooled. Is a brand new game with a confusing name. Still $70 for a console game; yikes.

        • Vamanos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          Others have already replied with this info but I’m just spelling it out for anyone who is not familiar like me:

          They fucking named the brand new game mk1. Is it a remaster? No. It’s not a remaster. Is it a recreation of mk1? No. It’s an alternate timeline game given the worst name in the history of naming things. It’s genuinely a brand new game.

            • Vamanos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              Sometimes I wish I could have a job where companies just say “hey should we make this decision” and I tell them “that’s so fucking stupid no one will actually like that” and get paid well for it.

              That’s my dream.

              • geosoco@kbin.socialOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                I’ve had some similar roles before, but more often than not companies just do it anyway, even if you have a lot of data to the contrary. It’s stupidly easy for someone in management to push some of this through despite the data, choose an arbitrary metric to define their success, get their bonus, and then bail for another company. Meanwhile, folks left at the company have to then try and fix all of the nonsense. It blows that we value failing forward. I’ve seen a few decent products just tanked this way.

            • Poggervania@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              I mean… we live in the timeline where we had the Xbox One being the third Xbox, and Battlefield 1 not being the first Battlefield.

              I would not be surprised if we start seeing “[Game Title] One” for rebooted games.

        • Sanctus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Its not an old game, MK1 is the latest release. The people getting served this are running it on hardware that was weak last generation. At a certain point you simply cannot push these devices any further. MK1 for Switch was never going to look beautiful, the current gen Switch can’t do it. I’m okay with devs making their games available, I mean at least you can play it. Theres a reason a Switch 2 is in the works.

        • VonCesaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s standard price for new games from EA, greater Microsoft (id, Bethesda, Obsidian, 343, etc), SqEnix, and WB

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Which is bullshit. It reminds me of when web email services offered ridiculously small inbox sizes, such as 25MB or 50MB. Then in came Google and offered 1GB, and all of a sudden all those companies found the way to match Google’s offering.

            But I guess if people are willing to pay for those ridiculous prices, and deal with in-game payments… shrug.

        • wahming@monyet.cc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Because you have the full choice to not buy and support it, if you think the price is unreasonable. It’s not a vital need, and nobody’s forcing customers to buy it. Housing, food, healthcare, we don’t have a choice. Buy or die. A video game? Not so much. The issue is not game publishers overcharging, it’s players who moan and whine… AND THEN BUY IT ANYWAY, thus ensuring the publishers will continue the practice

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Sure, but are we talking about people who buy the game, or people in general bashing at the price? They’re not necessarily the same group.

            It’s like when Apple announced that $1000 monitor stand. It was laughable. Even if I won’t buy one, I bashed it to no end, because it was fun.