DROP THE PRICE!

How about that Switch 2 Direct? I’ve been waiting for in-depth coverage since it was announced in January, and it looks to be quite the impressive upgrade! The specs are improved, the controllers are improved, even the games look interesting! Surely there’s nothing to complain about, right? Right?!

Leave it to gamers to find something (legitimate) to be angry about. The Switch 2 debuts later this year at an astounding $450 US, making it the most-expensive console in the company’s history. This isn’t factoring in the exchange rate to CDN, which, when considering our weak currency right now, pegs it at closer to $620. Terrific! And the internet let it be known they weren’t happy during Nintendo’s livestream, with demands to “Drop the price!” being frequently spammed. Ignoring how Nintendo of America has no sway in pricing, it’s easy to sympathize. Why so expensive?

The issue here lies with geopolitics. The world’s currently stuck in a major tariff war, thanks to a certain American leader. It was recently revealed, during “Liberation Day”, that tariffs for every country around the world, with several exceptions, as well as some non-countries, would be enacted. Among these included Canada, Japan, China and Vietnam. The Asiatic countries appeared to be hit hardest, with Vietnam getting slapped mercilessly. Naturally, these countries slapped tariffs in turn. Isn’t life grand?

The surge in pricing, therefore, isn’t accidental. It sucks, but that’s how tariffs work. Contrary to misconceptions, a tariff’s an import tax the consumer, not the supplier, pays. And given how inflation’s already quite a doozy, this additional tax has contributed to the sales price of the Switch 2. Factor in Japan’s currently-weak Yen, which hasn’t been adjusted for inflation, and you see the problem. After all, someone’s got to foot the bill!

If I’m sounding cynical, it’s not because I don’t feel burned. Nintendo might be out to make a profit, but they’re not bleeding financially. A recent audit of Japanese companies showed that Nintendo had no significant debts to speak of, thanks to the Switch’s success. They can afford to operate at a loss with the Switch 2, even if the console’s not immediately profitable. I know Nintendo wants a return on their investment immediately, but consumers coughing up that much money for a video game console, especially with the cost of living, is a big ask. Especially when they pride themselves on affordability.

While it’d be nice for Nintendo to eat the tariffs, we don’t live in a world where companies sacrifice their bottom-line for their consumers. This is another example of that. The tariffs suck, and we’re starting to see the consequences. But it’s not only The US: Canada’s also being impacted here. This is on top of our Dollar, with the exchange rate being absolutely brutal. Together with Ontario’s 13% HST, it’s likely that the $620 cost will be a ballpark, not an exact. It’s for that reason that I’ll hold off on immediately getting a Switch 2, especially when I have Switch games I want to play.

Yes, these tariffs suck. I get it. However, we shouldn’t be surprised. People knew going into the 2024 elections that this’d happen should Donald Trump become president again. We knew…yet Americans decided the price of eggs mattered more. This is a natural consequence of that shortsightedness. It’s a consequence that’s bleeding into other countries.

If anything, this is a wake-up call that tariffs are bad on principle. It’s not like they haven’t been bad before, The Smoot-Hawley Act prolonged The Great Depression, but people have to be reminded of this now. Especially in The US, where people vote against their best interests regularly. Tariff wars are loser wars, and the consumer pays the biggest price. Nowhere is this more-apparent than the Switch 2’s price tag. Sorry.

Honestly, gamers should become more politically-active. We don’t normally think about local and federal politics, but geo-affairs impact us, for better or worse. This is yet another example of that. And it’ll only get worse. I hate it, but it’s a reality.

What can we do? For starters, gamers should make their voices known. And not at Nintendo employees, because that’s unhelpful. Rather, they should make their case to politicians. It doesn’t matter which political party they belong to, they represent us. Specifically, American gamers should let American politicians know they’re unhappy, as they have more sway than anyone else. I don’t care how, but it should happen.

Also, gamers need to understand that Nintendo has their hands tied. They've moved their manufacturing facilities to Vietnam to circumvent Chinese tariffs. Unfortunately, Vietnam was hit with 46% tariffs. Ergo, it didn’t even up mattering. It’d be nice if Nintendo ate the cost of these tariffs, but I also wish the wealthy paid their fair share in taxes. We know that’s not happening.

I want to reiterate that I understand the frustration here. I don’t want to pay $620 for hardware! I hope that either the tariff war’s rethought, or the Switch 2’s price drops to something more reasonable. Because while the tariffs aren’t shocking, the display of greed is a problem. Nintendo’s been around since 1889. They know when to adapt. Their inability to read the room, or the consumer’s wallet, is, therefore, a real problem.

However, gamers need to be realistic when it comes to complaining about the Switch 2. This isn’t entirely Nintendo’s fault. They can only mitigate so much damage. This is really the end-result of a president with a huge ego. If change is to happen, it’s best to start there. That’s more important than the Switch 2’s price tag being too expensive, truthfully.

End-Credits Scenes SUCK?

Despite disagreeing with some of his takes, I have great respect for Patrick H. Willems. Even when I don’t agree with him on movies, which is often, I appreciate how much thought and research actually went into his videos. Nevertheless, I was dreading his piece on end-credits scenes, as I had many preconceived ideas I knew would clash with his. But I gave it a watch. And while he did a good job, I think that I should respond. Here goes:

Now, I don’t have the time, or patience, to research as extensively as Patrick. I’m not only not paid, but researching online can become tedious because of my Autism. Therefore, I’ll take his history on post-credit scenes at face value. It’ll be less of a headache for me that way. My response will instead focus on my personal experience with post-credits scenes. That doesn’t mean I’ll go easy on him, though. I never do.

Also, Patrick’s video making style can be…gratuitous. He’s a stickler for intros and storylines that go on for too long. This was especially true with The Charl Saga, which dragged on and was concluded with a mini-movie on Nebula. Ignoring how I don’t have Nebula, (why would I pay for videos when YouTube exists?), Patrick’s ambitions as a filmmaker frequently outpace his essay sensibilities. He enjoys making movies, or he wouldn’t have one premiering soon, but the bleed-over into his general content makes him another victim of YouTube bloat.

I mention all of this because Patrick oversimplifies and overcomplicates a nuanced subject like post-credit scenes. He’s right that there are an excess of them, and many are done poorly. But comparing them to an addiction, aside from trivializing addictions, ignores why people like them. I don’t think it’s a shallow “X person’s in here!” reaction with them. At least, not from me.

See, I used to not be a fan of sticking around for the credits. Occasionally I’d challenge myself and play games with friends to see how many Jewish names we spotted, but I usually got up and left. When the movie ended, so did my interest. And, naturally, I’d go home. That was the case for years, even when movies reused the musical motifs in their credits.

But then I matured. I think it was around the time I got into movies seriously, but I stayed behind to soak in what I’d watched. This was also around the time I had more disposable income, specifically my early-20’s, and movies were a far cheaper hobby than video games, so seeing them meant saving money. I also figured that since I paid out of my own pockets, I had more of an investment, and therefore should milk the experience for its worth. Staying for the credits, even if I didn’t remember who worked on what, was me staking my claim.

This is something I’ve only become more and more invested in since then, made easier by movies having end-credits scenes regularly. It’s my reward for sticking it out after the movie, reflecting on what I’d watched. Even if the end-credits scene “sucks”, it’s extra minutes I don’t mind wasting. And yeah, theatre employees have to wait longer to clean theatres because of that, I had a theatre job for a year and a half. But that’s not so much a problem with the movie as it is theatres shoving as many screenings in as possible in one day.

Another aspect of post-credits scenes that I like, and this wasn’t mentioned by Patrick, is that they’re transactional. To use a loose comparison, around the time I got into movies, I also got into anime movies. Anime movies frequently have something in the credits to keep audiences from leaving. Perhaps there’s a cultural reason, but if audiences are expected to stay through the credits, there might as well be something to sweeten the deal. Having post-credits scenes might be the North American equivalent of this phenomenon. We wait out of respect for the staff that worked on the movie, even if we don’t remember them, and in return we’re rewarded.

I like this. It might be frustrating for some filmmakers in the industry, which Patrick mentions in the video, but filmmakers aren’t most filmgoers. They look for different experiences than the average person, and they’re trained to be more critical. What may be a “cheap stinger at the end of a finished story” to them is a nice bonus to most people. And unlike Patrick’s insinuations, rather rudely too, moviegoers don’t only talk about the post-credits scenes. I think he gives them too little credit.

The post-credits scene “epidemic” correlating with the rise of franchised blockbusters isn’t accidental, especially with the decline in theatregoing experiences. Simply put, movie theatres aren’t fun to be in anymore. The ticket prices are outrageous, the concessions are a rip-off, the patrons lack etiquette, the trailers and pre-shows take forever and the movies themselves are increasingly-bloated. Also, many theatres are accessible to the bare minimum, leaving people with hearing or vision problems out of the equation. The movie star might be “dead”, which doesn’t bother me, and the sex-appeal of movies might be “dwindling”, which also doesn’t bother me, but there are real issues with modern theatre chains. Issues that, honestly, I only started noticing more with the pandemic and scaling back trips for new releases.

I’m not alone. You know how the average moviegoer ventures to the cinema a few times each year? A big reason, aside from cost, is that streaming and home releases have made cinemas increasingly obsolete. I see pre-show trailers begging people to see movies in theatres, the “way they’re meant to be seen”, but movies don’t have a specific “way” to be seen. If you want to go to a theatre to see a movie, good for you! But don’t shame people for lacking the time, money, or patience.

If movies are to justify theatre trips, they need a hook. That’s where post-credits scenes, particularly from The MCU, come in. Kevin Feige knows how to get people pumped for another entry. He knows people will be talking if they have something to look forward to, or he wouldn’t keep doing this. Patrick can complain all he wants, but end-stingers are good business decisions. They also make The MCU feel bigger than one or two movies, as if we’re only seeing a fraction of the story.

Honestly, the problem’s less “end-credits scenes” and more “bad end-credits scenes”. Because there are too many of the latter nowadays. It’s a problem even Marvel movies are starting to struggle with, focusing on shock value more than quality storytelling. End-credits scenes need to enhance what’s come before and hype what’s to come, not be there “because”. Or they can be a humorous pay-off to something, that works too.

I don’t intend to purposely demean Patrick’s frustrations, or anyone else’s. He’s entitled to be annoyed here, and he’s not alone. But I think he’s letting his personal biases get in the way of a trend that, for the most part, doesn’t ruin anything. The modern movie landscape has many other, more-pressing concerns, truthfully. Like how movie theatres aren’t conducive to patrons, something I’ve yet to see him actually address.