Messages

1

General / Re: August 2026 - Recently added to collection/recently purchased

« on: August 07, 2026, 09:47:54 pm »

I want spiderman web of shadows but only to an extent and that extent is below 200 for sure lol.

Are you wanting Spider-Man: Web of Shadows specifically for PlayStation 3, or do you just want to play it in some form? The Wii version is identical and garnered similar review scores from what I've read, and it's a fraction of the current market value for a PlayStation 3 copy.

2

General / Re: 52 Games Challenge 2026!!!

« on: August 06, 2026, 04:40:24 pm »

29. Still at the Table || Browser || 07.30.2026



More and more often, I'm finding myself playing game jam projects. Anything that interests me usually gets logged into a list to reference later as games I may want to play, resulting in a relatively long backlog of its own. So as I skimmed through some of the more popular entries submitted to yet another recent game jam, Still at the Table caught my attention for its more serious intepretation of the event's "spin to win" theme. But this time, I decided to try it sooner than later.

To be brief, Still at the Table is a narrative adventure game about the protagonist being confronted by his girlfriend Jessica in regards to his gambling addiction and the tolls it's had on their shared relationship. There's a clear focus on communication, but the game's gimmick is that players cannot outright select dialogue responses. Instead, he must gamble by using a roulette wheel that determines the conversation flow. So what this means is that the player's dialogue choice being triggered is entirely dependent upon whatever segment the roulette wheel stops at. And whether or not the player bets successfully on that same segment determines whether they earn or lose money. Of course, money is to be used on upgrades and actions that raise the chance of triggering the player's desired dialogue choice each round.

Yet, while the game's system seems compelling at first, it's rather static and with limitations that become apparent as the playthrough continues. When starting the game, players select of the three protagonists to choose from, each with their own personality type. However, personality types seem to not matter at all, for Jessica's dialogue follows the same script no matter which character is selected. From what I've observed, her dialogue only changes depending on which of the three dialogue response types is selected: Admit, Deny, or Question. Meanwhile, there is a health system of sorts that corresponds to any amount of money still withheld. One unit of health is removed once all money is lost, but then a small amount is returned back to the player allowing them to continue. This alone is too forgiving, but what's worse is the rate of failure. I actually don't know what occurs when depleting all health because the rate of success is set too high. It's a decision that directly conflicts with the great risks and low expectation of winning with gambling altogether. Concerning the act of gambling itself, I found no reason to bet high amounts. Part of this relates to the high rate of success previously mentioned, but it's still easily achieveable to gain what I'm presuming is the more positive end outcome to the game without actually spending any of the protagonist's earnings. So whether the player places low or high bets, there just aren't any stakes in the choices made or outcomes occurring.

Of course, players are free to play choosing any character response they deem fit. Since the three playable protagonists are supplied with one simple defining personality descriptor, players can roleplay to adhere to that specific trait—even if it's a response that may seem counterintuitive to the outcome players are trying to reach. Ideally, this sort of depth would be built into the game to differentiate three starting paths, but it's a shortcoming of the game's development limitations. Without this sort of approach, characterization is exclusive to Jessica only, and this negatively impacts the player's relationship with the protagonist they control. Of course, this style of play comes with a huge disclaimer, being the game's random nature.

From a conceptual point-of-view, Still at the Table is certainly interesting. Unfortunately, though, too many of its elements bear little importance. When a player's bet is unfavorable, the only adverse effect is money being lost. Assuming most players approach the game with the intention of mending the couple's relationship, a lost bet can still benefit the player since even simple response choices aren't always straightforward regarding what sort of effect they'll have on the conversation direction. Meanwhile, I'm not exactly sure what the game is arguing for with its gameplay mechanic. That the protagonist has become fully resigned to their gambling addiction to the extent that even their own thoughts and actions are wholly dictated by chance? That in relationships, we can't guarantee outcomes no matter what we ourselves do and say, because ultimately a relationship is built upon two parties? Maybe there's no greater depth beyond the mechanic itself. Should meaning exist or be wanting to exist, I think that a better approach to the game's gambling system would be for it to relate to Jessica's words and not the protagonist's. Were it modified that way, neither what the player selects or what the protagonist actually says would change; instead, Jessica's dialogue that was previewed before the player's placed bet would change, therefore making the protagonist's selection nonsensical and maybe even detrimental in that moment instead of what otherwise had been positive. It's just some idea, but it's an alternative to what's currently ineffective.

Despite what I feel are some of the game's mechanical shortcomings not being as successful as they could have been, Still at the Table proves to be effective through its presentation, though it's without its own faults. For games completed within a short time window, sound work tends to be underdeveloped or lacking altogether. However, I was surprised that voice acting—and competent voice acting, at that—is present for Jessica's somewhat lengthy dialogue. Unfortunately, though, the sound design altogether is especially problematic. For some reason, there is a deliberate distorted sound effect added. At the same time, there is a visual CRT filter that can be toggled on or off, and I thought that the distortion was related to it at first but actually isn't. Needless to say, this static and sound clipping is considerably unpleasant and detrimental to the gameplay experience. Going back to the filter, it's ultimately inadequate as it elevates no other aspect present. There's nothing implied while playing to suggest that we're viewing the game itself from a monitor, so its inclusion is questionable at best and disruptive at worst. Looking beyond these effects that impair the game at large, the game's core visuals are simple but nicely designed within a single-screen frame. Static character portraits are positioned at a corner which function fine for the game's scope, but simple animations that illustrate in-the-moment emotions would have been effective.

Having reached the end of my thoughts, one may conclude that my experience playing Still at the Table was poor. But this is far from the truth. Ultimately, the submitted game build experiments with a certain mechanic and system in a novel way, but it's perhaps not successfully implemented given the strict time limitations for development. This doesn't mean that the game is bad, though, as I can easily envision it being expanded upon and iterated as a more premium campaign without superfluous elements. The focus of game jams is to spend a short amount of time to test out ideas to see what works and what doesn't. That goal was definitely met, and the result is that Still at the Table exists as a unique final product.

3

Site Feedback / Re: Modern Games

« on: August 05, 2026, 08:13:31 pm »

The debate of where modern games start and retro games end has been debated to death, including here. I think we can all agree that the current generation (PS5, Switch, Switch 2, and XB S/X) are all modern, but for me, modern pretty much includes the current gen and previous gen.

Personally, I think the only meaningful way to try to reach some sort of objectivity is to classify "modern games" as any library of games that's currently being sold new on markets. Trying to reach some other conclusion will be too subjective. Although even by this metric, there will still be dissenting opinions. For example, it's been long since PlayStation 3 games have been sold on store shelves brand new, but they're still currently (though for not much longer) being sold digitally on the PlayStation Network.

So perhaps the best approach is to instead define "modern games" as any library that is still being majorly supported with new titles.

4

Modern Video Games / Re: It's officially over.

« on: August 01, 2026, 02:40:52 pm »

You're overlooking key details from my previous post.

But to sit here and say strreaming is a medium that can be fully eliminated without "any significant loss" is looking at things solely from the perspective of a physical media curator and it directly seeks to effect the quality of my life and is why I get so defensive of it.

By all accounts, physical items, digital files, and premium streaming services can coexist. The third, though, is most unnecessary and could be entirely removed without anything significant lost regarding content itself.

Like the opposite now with some physical media, the entire removal of any means of access is problematic—consumers should be able to choose how they engage.

When I mention that there would be no significant loss should paid streaming services cease to exist, it's in regard to content and the means to access that content—not the secondary nature of what some consider to be more readily accessible. Of course, there are now certain pieces of media exclusively available on streaming platforms, and there are even times when it's removed and becomes difficult to access elsewhere through other means or may even become lost entirely. However, none of those outcomes must exist and could easily be avoided.

Such content could be made accessible through physical items or digital files to purchase, as those forms of ownership will never go away in practice. So yes, if streaming were to end, content can always be made available to consumers through other methods. Physical media and digital distribution will always remain as options for creators to publish their works, as they still are today. So that some media is bound to paid streaming services exclusively and can be deleted on a moment's notice without consumer input is especially problematic and entirely avoidable, and it would ultimately be in consumers' best interest.

I mean I see a lot of people blaming Sony as if they are a boogeyman but where is the self blame? Societal blame? It's always boycott.  Why not in April?  Gamers waited till the fire become a 5 alarm now they run for the hose?

You're not wrong. The average consumer will accept any form of whatever they want, so long as it's offered and usable all the same as what's been replaced. Though I suppose I'll respond to some other parts of your post.

How many people bought a switch 2 or are considering doing so by show of hands? The console literally makes you sign a contract that states you don't physically own the hardware let alone software. If you move the wrong way, they can brick your entire console. Not from online.  From GAMING AT ALL. What stops them from doing that when the next console drops?

You may or may not have read my previous response to when you said this before.

And some of the games are key card only. If anything did they not start code in case?

Product keys have long been associated with physical games, though its early history exists with physical PC games throughout the 90s. For console games though, Sony began selling a subset of items in 2015 called Digitales that were game cases containing voucher codes without a disc. That's the earliest example I've been able to identify for console games providing a code only with physical products. And that example is for first-party items published by Sony, whereas "Download Code Only" copies of Switch games were for third-party titles only, and that remains true for Game-Key Cards for Switch 2 as of the timing of this post. Of course, Sony is also guilty of removing discs from boxed collector's editions starting with Horizon Forbidden West announced in September 2021.

Did they not start the 70 dollar price increase for physical with totk?

Nintendo did not. It was actually NBA 2K21 published by Take-Two Interactive Software (the same publisher as upcoming Grand Theft Auto VI), which released in November 2020. The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom released in May 2023.

5

General / Re: VGC's Anonymous/"General" Topic:

« on: August 01, 2026, 11:57:31 am »

I think that's how I would approach the situation were it me. but I suppose it really just depends on how long you're willing to wait to play the Switch 2 titles you're interested in. With that said, what all are you interested in playing for Switch 2?

There's actually a lot I'm interested to check out that is released at the moment. Mario Kart World, Donkey Kong Bananza, Star Fox, Pokopia, I was maybe interested in Splatoon Raiders as it looked like it had a cooler singleplayer component than previous games.  Hyrule Warriors: Age of Imprisonment was another, I wanted to replay Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom, and there's a couple Switch 1 games that came out towards its end that I never got to play that I think even have Switch 2 versions like Super Mario Wonder.  And then there's the upcoming Ocarina of Time remake which is a big deal for me personally. 

With Nintendo, I can better guarantee more games I'm interested in than like the one or two Sony puts out since they just don't really do much with like AA level games that much these days.  All these properties they have access too and they aren't doing anything with them.  No Twisted Metal, no Jak & Daxter, nothing with Bloodborne, no Kill Zone, so much stuff they could probably just get with another studio on to make, put out some stuff with reasonable budgeted games, but nah...Chasing the live service dragon mattered so much more and it bit them in the ass.

Maybe there's hope someday for Sony regarding their discarded IPs. Sega is having a revival of sorts that seems to be positively received, and Capcom and even Nintendo periodically release proper remakes for games with fanfare that feel far more deserved of them than something like The Last of Us. Maybe Sony will notice in time that fans would like that. But for me, I'd much prefer new series entries or, ideally, a new IP that catches my attention instead of a remake. Going through Sony's catalog, the last original games they own rights to that have interested me are The Last Guardian in 2016 and Until Dawn in 2015—and I still haven't even played the former. But at the same time, Nintendo is rather hit-or-miss with me too. After a full year of owning the Switch 2, the only three exclusives that appeal to me are Mario Kart World, Splatoon Raiders, and Orbitals—the third which could gain a wider console release someday. I wouldn't have bought the system with so little of interest, but I wasn't the one in my household who decided to buy it.

I've actually not played Ocarina of Time before in any capacity. Had the remake announcement instead been for an original title, I'd have been interested in it. I'd greatly prefer to play the original version, but I only own the 3DS remake so will more than likely resign to play that eventually once I've played all of the other games in the series I currently own. I suppose the same can be said for Majora's Mask too, which I only own the 3DS remake for but have never played in any way.

6

Modern Video Games / Re: It's officially over.

« on: August 01, 2026, 11:07:10 am »

That's quite the inflated estimate, by your measures. Such an estimate assumes that PlayStation 5 owners are wholly categorized as either someone who purchases physical games or someone else who purchases digital games, when instead the average owner will have purchased games by both means. We don't have to look far to confirm that realization either, as you yourself have purchased a small collection of digital games, based on your site Collection.

Another aspect you're also ignoring is that PlayStation 5 systems can be grouped in two ways: those with disc drives and those without. I'm assuming that 95 million figure doesn't differentiate between the two, meaning the number of consumers Sony is willing to "alienate" is fewer. At the same time, not all owners of PlayStation 5 systems which include disc drives will be resolute in ways like others are proclaiming they will be. Some will resign to a physical-absent ecosystem and continue purchasing games, albeit in a digital format only.

I'm not saying wholly categorized for anyone. There are games that are offered as digital only which skews the numbers in favor of digital sales by quite a lot, but if you want to play them, you have no choice and no ownership... and that's where the alienating comes from....ownership first, and choice second.

Oh, I was understanding "alienating" differently. I presumed you were using it in a way meaning whatever total number of users who prefer a physical format over a digital one and aren't willing to compromise with the proposed removal of physical discs, thereby rendering them lost customers since their consumer needs won't be met anymore. I really don't disagree with your point at all then.

7

Modern Video Games / Re: It's officially over.

« on: July 31, 2026, 11:04:27 am »

Sony CFO Lin Tao confirmed in their earnings call overnight that they won't be backing down from their digital only path. A little more than 95 million PS5's sold with 18% of game sales being physical. That means Sony is willing to alienate ~17 million of their consumers. That's going by their numbers, of course.

That's quite the inflated estimate, by your measures. Such an estimate assumes that PlayStation 5 owners are wholly categorized as either someone who purchases physical games or someone else who purchases digital games, when instead the average owner will have purchased games by both means. We don't have to look far to confirm that realization either, as you yourself have purchased a small collection of digital games, based on your site Collection.

Another aspect you're also ignoring is that PlayStation 5 systems can be grouped in two ways: those with disc drives and those without. I'm assuming that 95 million figure doesn't differentiate between the two, meaning the number of consumers Sony is willing to "alienate" is fewer. At the same time, not all owners of PlayStation 5 systems which include disc drives will be resolute in ways like others are proclaiming they will be. Some will resign to a physical-absent ecosystem and continue purchasing games, albeit in a digital format only.

8

General / Re: VGC's Anonymous/"General" Topic:

« on: July 30, 2026, 11:15:22 am »

Think I'm gonna trade my PS5 in at Gamestop and put it towards a Switch 2.  I kinda realized I haven't touched it at all this year and while I'm interested in Wolverine and God of War Laufrey coming, those are like one and done games and there's not a ton else.  Compared to Switch 2 where there's a bunch of games I'm interested in picking up and games I'm looking forward too. 

Still not 100%, my PC has had problems lately, which is my main gaming device, not sure what's wrong yet as it's been freezing up when I play higher end games, but my PS5 being a fall back if something happened to my system since certain parts can be absurdly priced nowadays sorta makes me want to keep it just in case.  We'll see I guess.

I'm trying to see if I can keep my PS5 just so I can finish out whatever the run is for the PS5 before most likely not getting a PS6, this would be the end of my Sony run probably, that way the couple games that may show up I can still play.

I think that's how I would approach the situation were it me. but I suppose it really just depends on how long you're willing to wait to play the Switch 2 titles you're interested in. With that said, what all are you interested in playing for Switch 2?

9

General / Re: July 2026 - Recently added to collection/recently purchased

« on: July 30, 2026, 10:44:40 am »

It went from 10 to 50 over the course of like 20 years.  That's natural appreciation.  50 to 175 in a week is not.   Are you basically saying its ok to take advantage of people.   What if toilet paper companies made rolls 17 dollars a roll?  And there response was "hey you paid it. Clearly thats ok with you"  no dude. I have to.wipe myself thats why I paid it lol.   People arent paying it because they are ok with it. They are paying it in fear it'll go even higher and thats cruel.

Of course, I'm not someone who supports market manipulation. With that said, the two scenarios being presented are vastly different from another. Your example relates to products for basic hygiene, whereas video games are wholly elective items that nobody needs. The two aren't really comparable. But like I said before, the market will eventually correct itself.

10

General / Re: 52 Games Challenge 2026!!!

« on: July 30, 2026, 09:20:30 am »

28. Lockpicks-11 || Browser || 07.27.2026



After skimming through a few segments of gameplay for Lockpicks-11, I stopped watching and decided I wanted to play it. It looked like a fun experience with a gameplay mechanic that I don't usually engage with, so playing seemed like it'd be worth the short time the game requires to complete.

At its core, Lockpicks-11 is a lock picking game presenting eleven mini-game challenges in the form of locked doors to bypass in order to complete a jewel heist. Yet, while there are eleven types of puzzles, only five puzzles in total must be solved to complete a run, meaning there is a possibility that the same types may be encountered across one short playthrough. There's a fine amount of variety presented in the puzzle types for a game of its length, though, ranging from logic and memorization to visual and sound. Similarly, there is flexibility in puzzles' difficulty that allows players who may not be skilled at puzzles the chance to still win. While the game is chiefly characterized by its puzzle aspect, another large focus is its open-ended and random nature. After clearing a door, the player-character will enter it and then be presented with two or three more to choose from, and then repeat the process. Doors themselves give insight as to what to expect too, as they're all designed differently in a way that corresponds to the type of lock challenge associated with it. So what that means is that players can strategize their escape route to some degree, avoiding more difficult puzzles while approaching simpler ones instead, or avoiding puzzles already encountered while purposely selecting ones that haven't.

Because there's no in-game explanation for any of the puzzles, a fair amount require trial-and-error to understand what sort of interactivity is being asked of the player. For some of the less obvious puzzles, the countdown to complete each task provides little time to experiment with mechanics. That issue is worsened due to the player's inability to manually select which puzzles they want to solve, although puzzles can be freely selected from the main menu once having completed them at least once. Although, oppositely, there is far too much time offered for the game's more obviously simple puzzles. Altering each puzzle's countdown meter would have better reinforced the hurried and chaotic nature of escaping on foot, which is something that definitely needs to be considered if an update to the game is ever made. Nevertheless, there's little feedback throughout puzzles that communicates to players that their attempts at solving are correct or not, something that will negatively impact some players' experience. And of the eleven puzzle types, I think that the above three issues greatly impact one specific puzzle. When knowing how the puzzle operates, it's not that challenging to solve; however, it came across as too cryptic across my playthrough, and I was only able to understand this puzzle once reading the developer's comments about it specifically in a response to other players' feedback about being unable to solve it too. Other players may find themselves stumped at any of the eleven puzzles, but it was only this one that left me stuck. To be upfront, it just seemed like a poor puzzle design when considering Lockpicks-11's lack of instruction. But despite these issues, I think that a lot of people will be dissatisfied without spending a little more time than is required to try out or even clear every puzzle. The experience requires only a handful of minutes to complete, so it's inviting in that regard.

For a game of this scope developed within a 72-hour limit, Lockpicks-11 offers a fantastic presentation. It features a simple yet effective pixel art style with a limited color palette, and it's made abundantly better by smooth animation sequences. Especially in the beginning time spent playing, each mistake made elevates by a security guard slowly rushing toward the player-character, serving as a countdown timer. It really conveys a welcomed sense of consequence to the player's actions, something that I feel most lock picking segments in games I've played or seen just don't achieve. Meanwhile, sound and music design aren't noteworthy by comparison, but they're still both adequate and well-suited to gameplay and scenario.

Throughout my time playing Lockpicks-11, I won't deny that its lock picking focus was fun. Like I mentioned before, it's not a gameplay mechanic I've engaged with much throughout play (I can only recall two games I've played that incorporate it), so I'm glad I was able to experience another game's adaptation to the activity.

11

Modern Video Games / Re: It's officially over.

« on: July 29, 2026, 07:01:40 pm »

YouTube is a streaming platform though and so is band camp and I certainly wouldn't own any song I stream on it. So you kinda made my point.  Of course there are ways to access music online without paying but solely because streaming exists. You just proved why its so important. And the people im arguing against dont want those either. Physical only. Youtube is good. It's a very useful public tool like Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesnt destroy physical encyclopedias and the need for them. Its a completely different resource. They coexist. Without all streaming. Free or otherwise.  Id have to literally source all my music physically. Pirate it illegally. Or hope the radio plays it so I can record it.  Just like the 90s.  Pre internet music was almost purely physical and public radio. 

I think some of the convo here is missing the context of the people im referencing so i'll add that to see your stance on it  They basically are saying everyone should live a physical only existence because all digital consumption is theft and killing physical. That includes all streaming both paid and free. They have called to boycott tubi, disney, and even steam. And digital gaming as well. Some are calling to intentionally hack switch 2 because since they made soke games digital only it is justified to pirate them games" Calling to take physical media and basically form.your own platforms where you can access these medias as a family with no contact with things you dont actually own.  That to me is something I intend to do as well.  With my physical stuff.  I dont even mind people mentioning doing it though. It's cool advice. My issue is where they insinuate most people have the means or wish to do something like that.  Or that it fully can replace my need for all digital media. I cant afford that. It requires a lot of money, patience and time. The average consumer is not like us even let alone an extreme curator.

The people that I am referencing are not counting digital as a alternative either.  They say if you dont own it they wont support it and nobody else should either or "you are part of the problem" its physical or nil to them. And that hysteria has gotten loud.  I just think it's pretty preachy lately.

As for your lending games.  Maybe I misread. You just said it cost 800 dollars to send them insured safely? You just said that this was meant to be a cost effective option for people to consume media. That's big money talk lol. That alone already makes what you did impossible for like 80 percent of middle America. And even if you dont insure the games. It's costly to ship stuff.  But to me what is more likely to make that hard is the trust aspect. That's a beautiful thing you trust a person enough to lend them games that cost so much but i'm sure you do admit that both you and your friend are in a very specialized circumstance there.  Id be lucky if my own brother would do what you did. Most people arent part of a community like this dealing with specialized friends.  If I want to borrow silent hill or say rule of rose. Maybe I could message you.  If you wanted to borrow one of my games. I'm sure that could be arranged. But that requires having a friend that not only collects games but has that level of commraderie with you.  Which is pretty hard.   Harder even more so in the digital age post pandemic.  You can't just meet someone at a game convention and be like "hey can I borrow your 200 dollar survival horror game. Trust me bro" lol.  You have trust I assume because you know this person.  Also its a collector forum so you assume we all are good at taking care of games. What about some new comer you meet on reddit?  Would you do the same?   I just think that idea takes a level of socializing and networking most introvert gamers arent willing or cant do.   But I do agree what you are saying should be part of our community. We last the community aspect of this hobby. It should be organized and more help eachother.  Soon im gonna give all my doubles away to collectors.  I want to benefit the communities as well.

Not once throughout any of my posts have I argued that streaming is unimportant. My argument is against premium, pay-to-access subscription services—so not examples like YouTube or Bandcamp—being viable alternatives to physical and digital mediums that I think I've already made clear. Concerning Bandcamp specifically, you are wrong. When purchasing music from Bandcamp, users are given a permanent link to download their digital library in various file formats to save locally; so yes, users have access to whatever is uploaded and sold for an indefinite amount of time. By all accounts, physical items, digital files, and premium streaming services can coexist. The third, though, is most unnecessary and could be entirely removed without anything significant lost regarding content itself. Like I said before, there was a time before any streaming existed at all, and things were fine.

I've not encountered anyone arguing against digital media altogether, let alone streaming. I'm sure those arguments exist, and maybe they're gaining some sort of social media traction, but it's not as if those people themselves have any sort of control over how entire industries function. Only if some sort of wide consumer change would those sorts of internal decisions be introduced, so it'd be (slightly) warranted if that were the case. Like the opposite now with some physical media, the entire removal of any means of access is problematic—consumers should be able to choose how they engage.

You did misread, although perhaps I could have worded that statement better. The games I lent were approximately valued around $800 at that time, so extra money was spent on shipping for that much insurance. That extra money was something like $20. But yes, I agree that my personal experience I've recounted with lending games most recently is more of an extreme. And again, I acknowledge that most people would not be willing to part with items with that sort of market value attributed to them without some sort of collateral. However, the principle of lending, borrowing, and trading remains. Just because the items in my scenario were valued high doesn't mean that every item wanting to be borrowed will be. Long ago—and especially in people's youths when a larger social circle was more available to them—it was far more common to encounter instances like these, when some common game was exchanged for another over the weekend or a holiday break. That sort of community could still exist. It's something I think should and likely will grow in these changing times regarding physical and digital ownership, but it's largely dependent on where one lives and the social connections they've cultivated. I wouldn't expect someone to lend items with a total stranger they've just met, and that includes me too. So, naturally, forming those good-faith communities online is difficult to do. Nevertheless, local institutions like libraries offer opportunities to rent items.

12

Video Game Database Discussion / Re: Developer/Publisher Requests

« on: July 29, 2026, 05:41:23 pm »

https://vgcollect.com/item/295734
https://vgcollect.com/item/296071
developer: The Gang

In time, your request will be submitted as The Gang Studio. The items themselves don't seem to mention any developer information besides a logo, although Nintendo's store page does mention it specifically.

13

Modern Video Games / Re: It's officially over.

« on: July 28, 2026, 01:14:40 pm »

Alot of people randomly decided this past week on my instagram in a great physical media awakening to use their collections to slander not only digital players, steam goers but streaming platforms as a whole.  As if streaming is why physical media has died. From the ashes has risen random dudes with 10,000 dvds like "if you wanna cancel your Netflix. Take all your dvds and put them on a family server account with this link Yada yada. Take all the movies and get them on disc. Viola. Now you arent a slave to a company" but sorta leaves out the part where in order to do that. You have to buy 120k dollars worth of physical dvds accross 5 decades. Like seriously?  They say this shit with a straight face.  Id never be ignorant enough to tell some guy with a ps plus games catelog "hey man. Wanna not pay 16.99 for that? Buy 300 PS5 games like me on disc! Then you own them forever" Netflix is 20 dollars a month.  For most families and even most gamers. Our lifestyle is not the way. Digital games arent the reason physical has died and most importantly. You cant use physical media to replace streaming.  It will never happen. Better to make those mediums coexist.  Owning physical dvds is not an alternative to having streaming platforms. Its a different universe.   Not to be looked at the same.

You don't have to own physical media in order to amass a personal digital collection. Just like with most things, physical items including video games and videos can be traded, borrowed, rented, and gifted. So if building a digital collection is something someone's particularly interested in (via the items they're in possession of by digitizing their content) and they have a limited budget, there certainly are means more widely accepted to do that. Despite your claim that physical media can't replace streaming, it absolutely can for certain individuals, and it doesn't have to be a costly endeavor. If there were more groups of people willing to trade or share their collections with each other, we'd all benefit. I really don't think I've ever done that in my life until last year when I shared some of my Silent Hill collection with someone else. It gave that person the opportunity to experience those games in a very accessible and affordable way, and especially when two of those titles in particular were and still are high market value items that most people now wouldn't ever consider buying. For a lot of people, they just want to experience something and not necessarily own it.

By no means are those who pay to use streaming services consume every piece of media being offered. Just because a service like Netflix or PlayStation Plus has x amount of pieces of content available doesn't mean the average subscriber feels the tremendous loss of whatever that total x figure is either. In fact, there are many who may only engage with one or two pieces of streamed media across a billing period, while there are many others who completely ignore the service altogether for long periods while continuing to pay the monthly fee. What this means is that everyone's interests vary. Every single person wanting to build a library will achieve that goal differently.

I dont find this to be true at all.  For example, there is content on streaming services that isnt even available on physical media. Some streaming exclusive shows for example. Some indie games also don't see physical release but that's a seperate argument. For netflix only shows some get ported to physical most don't. So for that sole reason alone you cant fully replace all streaming with a physical collection. Can you amass so much physical media that you decide "I dont need to watch streaming because my backlog is large enough to entertain me" sure of course. But that is not what is being argued.   I myself have a collection of 100 vinyl records. And 230 CDs. So I ask you this.  What do I do if I want to listen to an obscure grunge song of a Japanese grunge band I dont own? Delete my apple music and start spending thousands buying every album ever made?  Or in your suggestion try to find someone to borrow an item Noone has in my country?  Or just never play it.  Those are the 3 options in fairness. I do the norm and launch up apple music and listen to it and every other song of my desire in one place for $10 a month?   I use both physical and streaming. Both have their time and place.

In the quest to big up the pros of physical media which are abundant (ownership, trading, selling, hedge against defunct servers) people are constantly ignoring or pretending the pros of streaming don't exist (ease of access, convenience, affordability) and that is not helping anyone. For the average consumer it doesnt work that way. And I believe proof of that is the fact more people do it that way.  It's not because they are wrong.   Yes physical media is better for us. Ideal I should say. Is it always possible? No. Is it a pain in the ass sometimes? And costly? Yeah. We as collectors know that. To us its worth it. Especially on the media we want. But even a lot of diehard gamers emulate games we cant afford. So many users here use nintendo online to play earthbound because it costs so much.  Are you denying that importance? Some people really don't care about owning everything and want convenience. And not everyone has friends or expendable income. Are they wrong for that? I'm not inclined to say that.

The IF in your paragraph is a big if. Not many people even like letting others borrow things at all just because how little respect people have for others belongings. And that system would be nice of trading amongst eachother. That'd be a brilliant idea actually. But do you trust other users here to send your rarest game? I dont even have friends that have big collections tbh.  And people are so afraid that your 800 dillar rule of rose will end up on ebay if you let someone borrow it. So I think because of that.  The community swapping in that way will likely never be widespread.  And isolated friends wont have all the games you may want to play.

For most media that's available to be streamed, it's widely available to be purchased digitally as well. Not once was I arguing that an all-digital ecosystem could be replaced (not without internal industry change, that is.) Though if you're someone who doesn't engage with streaming platforms and are wanting to engage with a streaming-only item, then there certainly are less than publicly accepted means of being able to do so. Of course, the fact of the matter is that there was a time not that long ago when digital media was not streamed and only available to be purchased. With your example of EarthBound, it was available for years as a digital release on Nintendo's Wii U storefront. It could still be available for purchase on their more modern platforms, but Nintendo knows it's more profitable to charge for a streaming subscription while removing the means to purchase the software altogether.

And with your example of wanting to listen to some obscure song while not be a subscriber of streaming services, then the song is definitely also available on free, public spaces like YouTube, whereas modern songs from indie artists will be available on free platforms like Bandcamp. Both platforms offer a free means to engage with these items, alongside Bandcamp also being a platform that grants its users the option to buy both digital and physical products.

And yes, I would trust select members from our community to trade games with. The person I was referencing is actually a member of our site—someone, which I will add, whom I've never met. It's interesting you specifically mention a $800 price amount, because I believe that's the amount of insurance that a significantly lower total of money was spent to ensure the items I lent were mailed in confidence. Though it's true what you're saying about trading or lending being an imperfect system, though largely in regards to the fact that not all out-of-print items someone may be interested in may be available to them even through others' ownership. But then again, most of these kinds of items are only available physically, so it's not as if streaming or even digital formats have the advantage in that scenario. In that case, really all there is for someone on a budget to do is to expand their network.

14

Modern Video Games / Re: It's officially over.

« on: July 28, 2026, 08:58:32 am »

Alot of people randomly decided this past week on my instagram in a great physical media awakening to use their collections to slander not only digital players, steam goers but streaming platforms as a whole.  As if streaming is why physical media has died. From the ashes has risen random dudes with 10,000 dvds like "if you wanna cancel your Netflix. Take all your dvds and put them on a family server account with this link Yada yada. Take all the movies and get them on disc. Viola. Now you arent a slave to a company" but sorta leaves out the part where in order to do that. You have to buy 120k dollars worth of physical dvds accross 5 decades. Like seriously?  They say this shit with a straight face.  Id never be ignorant enough to tell some guy with a ps plus games catelog "hey man. Wanna not pay 16.99 for that? Buy 300 PS5 games like me on disc! Then you own them forever" Netflix is 20 dollars a month.  For most families and even most gamers. Our lifestyle is not the way. Digital games arent the reason physical has died and most importantly. You cant use physical media to replace streaming.  It will never happen. Better to make those mediums coexist.  Owning physical dvds is not an alternative to having streaming platforms. Its a different universe.   Not to be looked at the same.

You don't have to own physical media in order to amass a personal digital collection. Just like with most things, physical items including video games and videos can be traded, borrowed, rented, and gifted. So if building a digital collection is something someone's particularly interested in (via the items they're in possession of by digitizing their content) and they have a limited budget, there certainly are means more widely accepted to do that. Despite your claim that physical media can't replace streaming, it absolutely can for certain individuals, and it doesn't have to be a costly endeavor. If there were more groups of people willing to trade or share their collections with each other, we'd all benefit. I really don't think I've ever done that in my life until last year when I shared some of my Silent Hill collection with someone else. It gave that person the opportunity to experience those games in a very accessible and affordable way, and especially when two of those titles in particular were and still are high market value items that most people now wouldn't ever consider buying. For a lot of people, they just want to experience something and not necessarily own it.

By no means are those who pay to use streaming services consume every piece of media being offered. Just because a service like Netflix or PlayStation Plus has x amount of pieces of content available doesn't mean the average subscriber feels the tremendous loss of whatever that total x figure is either. In fact, there are many who may only engage with one or two pieces of streamed media across a billing period, while there are many others who completely ignore the service altogether for long periods while continuing to pay the monthly fee. What this means is that everyone's interests vary. Every single person wanting to build a library will achieve that goal differently.

15

General / Re: July 2026 - Recently added to collection/recently purchased

« on: July 28, 2026, 08:31:21 am »

I just posted about this in the "its over" thread.  It's so cringe tbh.  Folklore for PS3 went from 50 dollars to 145 dollars in like 2 weeks because Sonys announcement.  Why would anyone hear that PS6 will be digital only and think "man. I really need to buy obscure PS3 games from 20 years ago now"  Sony announcing no more discs in 2028 sure makes ps2 games more scarce right?   sometimes gamers drive me up a wall.   What better way to celebrate or rally behind physical than to make it unobtainable to the average consumer.

I'll probably be forced out of the hobby entirely if it gets any worse.

I mean, aren't you doing that right now by buying select PlayStation 3 titles in bulk? While you may not be the one setting prices, you're definitely someone who's demonstrating that any listed price for specific items are acceptable since you as a buyer are validating their market value.

Based on my collection notes, I bought my personal copy of Folklore in 2016 for $10. The same argument could be made for the difference in price from then up until recently. It's the same game then as it is now—setting aside the sharp rise in prices very recently, was the game even worth its value of the $50 price you're mentioning? Maybe, or maybe not. People seemed to think so then, and apparently people seem to think so now of its current market value.

People have been priced out of the hobby before, and they'll be priced out of the hobby again. It's a cycle largely dependent on the maturing age of consumers as they want to reclaim specific titles they grew up with especially, but eventually prices will return to a more acceptable and affordable rate.