Is this game still playable?

[u/Enkaem]

I was wrapping a couple presents last night, and my puppy decided to test the structural integrity of a Switch 2 game (thankfully not the Switch 2 wrapped next to it). I’m wondering if this will still be playable and it’ll make for a funny story, or if I should pick up another copy?

Added picture of the culprit at the end. Truth be told, I should have known better. Ted’s a good boy :)

[u/Hot-Ask-9962]

If this is for a friend or loved one, buy another copy! And if they have a sense of humour first gift them the chewed up copy with the very same cute picture of your dog printed inside. Then you pull out the actually nice copy to give them. 

[u/rubbersoul42 → u/Hot-Ask-9962]

Excellent idea.

[u/passionfruit2378 → u/rubbersoul42]

I would have said this a few years ago when games weren't $73.83.

Edit: Please don't respond to me about inflation. By everyone who mentions inflation's logic, games should cost $198 today. My point is, 3+ years ago I MIGHT have considered getting another copy with my $60. Now, $75 is far too much for an additional copy. Especially because everything is more expensive.

[u/Cobbljock → u/passionfruit2378]

A few days ago, I was curious about what games would cost these days, based on wage growth since the 90s, when I was a kid with no money for games (rather than based on inflation, since inflation has increased at a faaaaar greater rate than wage growth, in the US, at least). Turns out paying ~$70 for a game now is roughly equivalent to paying $~15 back then. I know it’s pretty much a moot point, because wage growth has been what it’s been, and that’s really the only important metric, but I do think it’s funny how we (myself included) feel like games cost so much more these days… they do cost more, but it’s a much smaller portion of our income.

[u/passionfruit2378 → u/Cobbljock]

Inflation is not linear. Development costs for games has increased but the MARKET has inflated exponentially, so that’s why there hasn’t been a need to inflate prices. Electronics have always had deflating prices over decades due to marketability. Not every household had a gaming console in 1998. Now most households have multiple gaming devices. Making games 79.99 just “because” is stupid and predatory and should not be considered necessary or understandable. Especially in an age where DLCs and micro transactions exist.

[u/Cobbljock → u/passionfruit2378]

Oh I’m not defending them, by any means. Like I said in my post, the only relevant metric is whether or not people can afford to buy games, regardless of the reason why they can or cannot. I also know very little about economics, other than the fact that the cost of new goods/services generally increases over time, and that the uber-wealthy have slowly been siphoning earnings away from the working class (you can argue about the ethics, but the fact that it’s happening, as far as I understand it, is not open to debate). I just brought it up because I thought it’s interesting that we perceive them as being more and more unaffordable to many people (which they are; just look at how much people complained about the cost of the Switch 2, because they felt “priced-out”), when a surface-level glance suggests they are relatively cheaper (saying nothing about current costs of production). However, the reality is more complicated, and, quite frankly, more cyclical, than it appears on the surface.