Do women need to chill on their views toward men?

 So, some are gonna blast me for this, but Asmongold had a video about how young women have grown to hate men, and have dating standards incongruent to the actual dating market. I guess this is the opposite side of the coin from my "are gen Z men okay?" type posts I've made since the 2024 election.

As we know, men have been driven right, and women left. A lot of this polarization has completely destroyed dating mechanics among gen Z. There's a lot of tribalism on both sides, and normally I put young men supporting MAGA on blast, but after watching this, I believe women deserve criticism too. 

A lot of women seem to HATE men. Like, the stereotype of "man hating" women seems true, at least based on some of the data presented. I can get SOME of that. I mean, if you're dealing with conservative men who want a tradwife where you're supposed to be barefoot and pregnant all of the time, they have super regressive views, yeah, exclude those frickers from your dating pool. I get it. But, it seems like a lot of women DO have their own "incel" problem, as Asmongold pointed out, or a "femcel" problem where they just seem to hate on men all day and can never find the right man because their dating standards are ridiculously high. And...again, pot calling the kettle black given I have unrealistic standards myself, but I'm more than willing to admit my own faults on that subject and I have standards virtually no women seem to meet. But here, it does seem like women do have ridiculous standards.

Like, on politics, I can understand needing some level of worldview and lifestyle compatibility. You dont want someone who sees you as breeding cattle, I get it. But then most women would refuse to date someone for a differing view on like, gaza or some crap? That's mental. And the fact that this kind of exclusivity is driven primarily by women is a bit insane to me. Because again, some political differences cant be reconciled, I get that. But I feel like modern radical feminism, ie, what the right calls "gender ideology", what I call 'wokeism", is just toxic. It really is. It encourages an insane level of tribalism where ANY deviation from expectations just puts you on these peoples' craplist. Me, purity tests can be justified, but pick your battles. Really. I mean, this isnt all that different than the leftists hating on AOC over israel. Like...let's be blunt, why TF should MOST americans care about what other peoples' opinions on israel are? It's just bonkers to me. and it's all sides. Like I had a long time friend from college unfriend me recently because she's a die hard zionist and I've been more critical of israel lately on social media. It's insane to just push people out of your life who you've known for years over this issue. Like totally mental. But....for these guys, most women, it's the opposite, you bet they're for palestine and if you have ANY pro israel views you're gone. And if you're nuanced like me, well, you're especially screwed because both sides end up dogpiling on you for not toeing their line exactly. And here's the thing. Does this crap even matter? Again, something as basic and central as whether your partner thinks you deserve rights, I can understand how there's a basic disconnect there. But this is just stupid.

An issue that is arguably more within the purview of lifestyle, but that I feel passionate about to talk about on this, is also that of the "stay at home boyfriend" thing. Like, a lot of women JUST dont like that idea. I mean, I can get you dont wanna support someone else, okay. You do you. BUT...I'm gonna be honest. This whole femcel thing of "there's never any good men left"? Yeah...about that. Look. Here's my honest views on this issue, as a "NEET", and as someone who in a relationship would ideally wanna be a "stay at home boyfriend" of some sorts. 

As far as feminism goes, I'm fine with women having rights. I'm fine with women working. I'm fine with people doing what they want. Honestly, I don't get the work thing because I feel like capitalism is a soft form of slavery, honestly. But, I can understand, coming from a position of being reliant on men who would often be abusive and not see women as equals, why women would view work as more...liberating. 

However, I also think, in the 21st century, we need to have an honest talk about work and it being basically a form of slavery we don't call slavery. And...I think in terms of dating, we should talk about the whole stay at home boyfriend thing. The economy is not what it used to be for men. And millions of men have been displaced from it, mostly through no fault of their own. It's tough out there. We dont have the opportunities, what we have to settle for in the form of low wage service jobs sucks. And I know a lot of it has to do with education, women are becoming more educated than men, but for men....it sucks too. I went to college and came out of it unable to do much with my degree. And it was demoralizing. And that's how I became a NEET. I'm a victim of the 2008 financial crisis and the fact that no one was hiring for YEARS after that. I'm also a victim of deindustrialization and the fact that the job market in a lot of areas just sucks these days. Now, you can argue some aspects were my fault. I chose a poor major, and post deconversion from christianity, I lost what one would call a good "work ethic" (because that work ethic was tied to the christian worldview I've come to reject). But that's also why I'm able to criticize the system as it is. Rather than be all wrapped up in this christian work ethic, I have a nice solid dose of "reality" thee and see things for what they really are. I left "the cave", and quite frankly, I kinda have different views on the subject. To me, work isn't liberating. It's literally slavery that we dont call slavery. And I seek liberation from this system. 

In a lot of ways, to go back to feminism, I think the tradeoff is weird here. The social contract changed for women. Which, dont get me wrong, as a progressive liberal type, is positive. More options is nice. But it never changed for men. And the world HAS changed for men a lot in the past half century or more. We're still expected to be breadwinners, to have it together, to be everything to women, but then women so changed their side of the contract is makes it impossible for us to date properly. I've discussed previously we often cant approach women in a healthy way. Dating sites are a fricking joke. Apparently women get their pick from dozens, if not hundreds of women, men get no bites back unless they're super tall and super handsome, and have the right job, blah blah blah. We're expected to be breadwinners in an era where jobs are hard to come by and millions are pushed out of the job market. No one wants to date us because we're "losers" if we don't work. And the women on the news segment that asmongold covered were like "ick" at the thought of dating a guy without a job. And it's just...awful. It's fricking awful for men. 

And I'm not gonna say the answer is to become MRAs or incels, it's not. That's just more toxic gender ideology, just from a masculine, conservative point of view. I dont want to bring back traditionalism, or machismo, or stoicism, or this whole jordan peterson/andrew tate "hit the gym" mentality. That stuff is toxic, and I reject it outright. I also reject a lot of asmongold's conservative takes in HIS video. 

But...I'm going to be blunt. We need a new social contract. It's fine for things to change for women, but men need their own changes to their own expectations too.  And I'd like to see things like, say, a UBI and less emphasis on work being this end all be all of everything. Dual income households from work is not an improvement in my view. Needing both partners to work to keep a household afloat is NOT liberation. It's just another form of enslavement. Men needing to be breadwinners keeps us in this matrix of work centric social standards that we should wish to free ourselves from. All of the stuff I talk about. UBI, medicare for all, this stuff should LIBERATE us. Liberate ALL of us from all forms of coercion arrangements. UBI frees women from bad relationships with men. it does. Finances are often what keeps abused women in bad relationships. A UBI would allow women to walk away more easily. And UBI would free men from the coercive aspect of jobs and work. And it would ideally free them from the social expectations that women expect from men, or at least reduce those expectations somewhat. 

Basically, all of this stuff would free us from crappy social obligations that don't make sense. Make no mistake, women's liberation is a good thing. I'm not a traditionalist. But...once hypocrisy I notice among feminists is they're all for progress for themselves, while holding men to traditionalist standards. And I think that's at the root of the problems discussed here. Women don't want to be tradwives, but they want tradhusbands. And, quite frankly, we need to just be anti tradition. That's the ultimate destiny of the left IMO. Women had their own liberation from "the patriarchy", but men need liberation from the economic coercion to work in my view. Again, a UBI would help this. It would make the idea of dating someone without a job a bit more normalized. Because both parties would have an income stream, job or not, and both could contribute somewhat. I can kinda understand why women wouldnt want someone to be dead weight, but again, UBI would solve that. Otherwise, it's just, "well you gotta sell yourself into slavery to have a relationship" and that just ain't attractive to me. I'm sorry, it's not. Ya know?

Just my view. And in the modern age...again, women are free to have the standards they want, as someone with unreasonably high standards myself, I have no room to judge, BUT....at some point, women are gonna have to take what they can get and if that involves someone not in the workforce, or someone who isn't 6 feet, or is balding at the ripe old age of 27, or has a beer gut, well, maybe you should consider it? Otherwise, it looks like gen Z is just gonna be a hyper polarized mess of no one dating anyone, the next generation not being made, and our population pyramid becoming a space needle. 

Oh, and this has been on my mind, but if that happens, we might end up backlashing into traditionalist barbarism sooner or later as people blame "womens' liberation" for that happening and pushing the return to "the good old days", since people seem more inclined to wanna return to some idealized version of the past than actually move toward a future that actually works. Just saying. It's a pattern I've observed. How many human centered capitalists are there and how many people instead become alt right MAGA hacks? Yeah. Just basic math. My own take? Fix the underlying social issues and change our social standards. But a lot of people would rather revert to the past than to take that road that's less traveled. Just something I fear for the future, ladies. From your friendly progressive male who isn't an obnoxious hyper feminist but obviously hates MAGA and traditionalism too.  

Why the switch 2 is the worst of all worlds and why I find it so unattractive

 So...I got arguing with nintendo fanboys again. Wouldnt recommend it. They're some of the most deluded and tribalistic people I've come across outside of the republican party. But I do want to articulate some points I have regarding the switch 2, and why I find it so unattractive. None of this is new, and my opinions can be derived from previous things I said, both related to the switch 2, and other similar items like the steam deck, but I feel like it's worth discussing. 

Too bulky and expensive for a handheld, too weak for a home console

The biggest critique I have in particular is that the switch 2 occupies that awkward steam deck like space of being the worst of all possible worlds. The switch 2 isn't just a home console, nor is it just a handheld, it wants to do both, and in doing so, it made design tradeoffs that make it awkward for both propositions. 

First, the handheld side of things. As I said, I think if youre gonna release a handheld, it should be cheap and portable. It's not gonna be the best power wise, but it doesn't have to be. I mean, that's the ever existing tradeoff of portability. Portable consoles have always been 1-2 generations behind the home console or PC equivalent. The game boy and game gear were 8 bit SNES/master like systems when the SNES and Genesis were home consoles. The Game Boy Advance is closest to say, a genesis 32x in the gamecube era. So 1.5 generations behind. The DS was an N64. The 3DS was like a dreamcast or gamecube. The switch 1 was like an Xbox 360 or PS3. The Switch 2 now is pushing PS4 Pro type specs. But for some reason, people want the thing to compete with the PS5. And that's problematic. 

It's trying to repeat the Steam Deck strategy of cramming PS4 type specs into a handheld form factor. And while due to releasing several years later the Switch 2 is stronger than a steam deck, it's still very weak compared to a PS5. A PS5 or similar computer is 4x stronger on GPU alone, ignoring other specs. So trying to run PS5 ports is not gonna be a good time. Quite frankly, people are marveling that it runs cyberpunk on minimum at like 40 FPS, but honestly, is that something we should celebrate? It's a bad experience, compare to a home console or a dedicated PC. Sure, it's portable, but at this point Id rather focus on older games that run well than newer ones that don't. 

And what are the tradeoffs for this? High price, bulky, low battery life. It's the game gear all over again and the game boy beat the game gear for a reason. The point of a handheld is portability. Just because you CAN cram more power into something doesn't mean you should. And I cant imagine a parent would appreciate an expensive $450 device getting smashed because kids be kids and kids are rough with their stuff. Nintendo handhelds used to be built like tanks and we STILL managed to break them because kids are rough with each other and their stuff. But you know, something being the equivalent of $250 or less is a lot more swallowable than $450 if you gotta replace something. 

A device like the switch 2 is something you wanna never take out of the house and always baby. It's not something your kid is gonna play in the grocery store while youre shopping. They're not gonna play it in a restaurant while waiting for food. For all the talk of portabiity, I NEVER see kids playing with switches in the wild. It's always phones or tablets. Because android devices are cheap and can play games too. And kids wanna play their fortnite, minecraft, and epstein forbid, roblox (seriously, if your kid plays this keep an eye on them, i'm sure youre familiar with the pedo controversies with that one). Even more so they're likely to watch pewdiepie or markiplier stream a game or something. Point is, the switch 2 isnt very portable. And I NEVER see anyone using one. It seems to be their "home handheld" due to the cost, not something you take with you literally everywhere, which is the point of these things.

So....the switch 2....bad as a portable console. But home console, again, it's still markedly weaker than the 6 year old PS5 and Xbox Series X. In all fairness to nintendo, they've played the "weaker" game for a while now. For a while, it was arguably a price point tradeoff. You can buy a more expensive console thats better, but you are paying 1.5-2x as much. And nintendo consoles always have weaker third party support as a result. Because a lot of developers dont wanna bother trying to scale down games to be a generation behind the competition. So you get a mixed bag of inferior ports with obvious compromises, if the game makes it to the older platform at all. And many don't. 

But then people say....well....it seems like what you want is a phone. But the problem is that a kid can just play games on a phone. Nintendo has to innovate and do something different here. But again...maybe what I want out of a handheld IS a phone?

I mean....my main handheld is a razer edge. It's a tablet with a relatively premium chipset in it (although its aging by this point) that has a razer kishi controller attached. It runs most games in the play store, and does a lot of emulation just fine. And it IS more portable. And you know what? Because it is a tablet as well....I can talk to friends on it, surf the internet, watch videos. AND game. 

Honestly, I think the primary reason this thing got a bad rap was because it was released as a premium device. It was $400 at launch, $600 if you wanted 5G, it flopped at that price point, razer never supported it well post launch. And yeah, I bought it toward the end of its life cycle in 2024 when they were discounting them to $200 just to get rid of them. By that point,, $200 was a good price point, competitive with retro handhelds with similar specs at the time. And it's a pretty nice device for $200. I can see why it flopped for $400 as that's a huge asking price, but for $200? It was a steal. 

With that said, what's wrong with a $200-300 phone like gaming handheld? Again, people argue it's not powerful enough or unique enough. but for me, the point of nintendo consoles is the software. You cant play nintendo games on the google play store. You cant play them on steam. You gotta buy them from them. Honestly, why not do the nvidia shield model of releasing nintendo exclusives? I mean, maybe piracy. Nintendo is very protective of their IP, but as gabe newell of valve would say, piracy is a service problem, and maybe nintendo just is out of touch with consumers here. Of course, they're very prideful and dont wanna change, and quite frankly, their Japanese company culture is stuck in the past. Which finally brings me to the other point.

Their business model is stuck in the past

So, here's a basic economic lesson I think nintendo has to learn. And it's a huge reason I struggle to justify buying nintendo consoles. For my whole life, the general economics of video games is this: you have multiple options, but you can only afford one. Sega genesis or SNES? Playstation or Nintendo 64? Gamecube, PS2, or Xbox? Wii, Xbox 360, or PS3? Etc. And PC kinda became a fourth option over time, that i trended toward after that.

But generally....I could only afford one. And that locks you into that company's eco system with the pros and cons. Nintendo's being....good exclusive franchises, you got your mario, your mariokart, pokemon, zelda, etc., but again, due to the weak/underpowered console thing, often poor third party support. You get inferior ports of games if you get ports at all. And you get locked out of the rest of the ecosystem.

This basic economic tenet is still relevant today. if you have limited money to spend, you wanna get the best bang for your buck. And thankfully, due to the proliferation of PC gaming and the digitization of everything, I feel like the rest of the industry is trending toward an "omni-ecosystem" so to speak. Console exclusivity is becoming a thing of the past. While theres still somewhat of a rivalry between sony and microsoft, I feel like as a PC gamer I get the majority of titles from both. I know Sony seems to be backtracking from this, and xbox is kinda dying because of this. But I think it's been good for consumers. Locking people into locked down ecosystems is generally limiting to consumers. releasing games on multiple platforms is good for them. And as a PC gamer, I generally go for a decent gaming PC as my "one option" to maximize my access to games, and I use an android handheld as discussed above for portability.

But that's where Nintendo falters big for me. Nintendo is stuck in the past, in an era of console exclusivity and forcing people to buy their specific hardware to run their specific software. And console exclusivity is a good strategy for getting people to invest in that ecosystem, but we have the "omni-ecosystem" now, and they're the only hold outs of the old world. And honestly? Their value aint great. Historically, you could argue the cost was low enough where some WOULD consider a wii or a switch as a second console. But for me, I always considered that to be rather borderline of a proposition. I mean, I can sustain a PC up to this point, and then spend $200 for an entry level android device for on the go. But then nintendo wants me to spend $300 to buy THEIR console, and with their new one, $450? And for what? Just to buy their games? If I only played nintendo games, that would be a good deal, but remember what I said otherwise. Their consoles are underpowered, their third party support is crap. You get inferior ports when you get ports at all. And often times you DONT get ports at all. So...nintendo is forcing me to choose between their ecosystem, and access to the larger omniecosystem of the digital age. And while I guess, if I didnt invest in such a nice PC to play games from that ecosystem I could swing it, that would inevitably cost me access to other games I care about. Battlefield games typically are rather demanding for example, and they're my main multiplayer game since around 2010ish. COD isnt on nintendo either. And while you can play them on older hardware, it's not the best experience. And I'd just fall behind on other AAA games I care about. Starfield doesnt run on weaker devices. Hell, it is barely functional on my PC. It doesnt work for compromised "steam deck" or switch 2 type experiences at all. And that's the engine a hypothetical Elder Scrolls 6 or Fallout 5 would run on. Doom the dark ages, outer worlds 2, both mediocre games, but I was into them. And they wont run on compromised hardware, they barely run on what I have (well OW2 arguably has breathing room, but Doom doesnt). 

I mean, this is the bad dilemma nintendo's business model forces on me. Do really wanna pay extra just to play mariokart, the new mario game, the new pokemon game, etc? Dont get me wrong, I love those franchises, but they're not so essential to my gaming experience I HAVE to have them.

The fact is, Nintendo tries to throw their weight around and push them into their ecosystem. And for some nintendo die hards, it works. I know some will pay whatever nintendo charges for those games because they're the franchises they grew up with and they have to have them. But I don't. My tastes have matured over the years, and yeah I grew up playing pokemon and mario like everyone else (even then, not consistently, I was a sega kid), and yeah, over time, Nintendo's franchises just started mattering less to me. Especially when given the ecosystem tradeoffs of "nintendo vs everything else" are at play. Sorry, Nintendo, you're just not that important. And for me, they gotta adjust to the market. Which means...less console exclusivity, and joining the omni-ecosystem with everyone else. 

By the way, if I did have to choose of the big three, I'd easily choose microsoft. ID games (Doom/Quake), Bethesda (Fallout/TES), activision (COD), 343 (Halo), Microsoft really does have a powerhouse of games I find essential to my gaming experience these days, and I'd miss them a lot more than I'd miss mario or pokemon, believe me. But...honestly? Im fine with exclusivity just dying and everyone being in the same general ecosystem. I thought the world was ending when sega discontinued the dreamcast, but now sega has stuff on every other platform. And while their game quality has largely declined over time, I still like having the flexibility. And that's what I ultimately value. The best value for the money. The most games for the least amount of money. Nintendo wants to charge a premium for hardware and for games, they lose a lot of clout with me. And yeah, all that exclusivity stuff the fanboys seem to love for some reason ("but but, if they didn't do that, what would separate them from phones?" Exactly...maybe what I want is...a gaming phone for a handheld, or a gaming PC for a console....these devices are just PCs....just with custom hardware and OSes, that's ALL THEY ARE, and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we can move beyond consoles and just embrace the omni-ecosystem), I just hate. Because it's not a good value, and it feels antiquated, like the product of a past era of gaming that the digital age has allowed us to grow out of. 

I want to play nintendo games on my phone or tablet. I want to play them on my PC. If nintendo wants to release some sort of specialized gaming oriented device, like a gaming phone that can do that, well, that's all well and good. But they dont wanna. Because they're stuck in the old world. And they're too prideful to change, and fear losing profits. But...as I see it, they're losing me as a customer by gatekeeping their stuff behind extra paywalls. Because that's what a console is. A paywall. And then they overcharge for their games, never put them on sale, or put them on sale with such a shallow discount I could buy a 6 month old game on steam at a similar price. And yeah. It's just unattractive.

Conclusion

And yeah, that's where I'm at with nintendo. Btw, I take more shots at them recently because on top of it all their switch 2 IS very expensive for what it is and I fear that has second order effects for the other consoles. We're talking $650-1000 for next gen consoles. $650 not TOO TOO bad, but given the PS5 currently goes for that and went UP from $500....the next gen console probably will cost close to $1k. So that's why i normally dunk on them.

But I also wanted to discuss the problems with business model they seem to have with me beyond that. The fact is, the switch 2 is an awkward value proposition. it's an oversized, overpriced, and overpowered handheld, but on the flip side, it's still underpowered for a home console.

And again, the whole "console" thing aint doing it for me any more. They're forcing exclusivity in an era where the rest of the ecosystem is more unified. And the financial barriers associated with that always leave me with the bitter pill of either buying nintendo to play the handful of franchises they make that I like, or just...playing everything else on what I'd otherwise buy. And I would literally choose "everything else" over nintendo and their exclusives, especially given their third party experience just flat out sucks. Even with the switch 2 it sucks due to the console STILL being massively underpowered vs even the 6 year old PS5 or an equivalent gaming PC. Like really, the specs are stuck in like the early to mid 2010s at best. Which...dont get me wrong, can put out decent visuals on paper, BUT...when games are designed for hardware 4-6x better than that...you're just not gonna have a good time on that tier of hardware. And given their software costs as well and the fact that unlike on steam they never seem to put things on sale, it's like, yeah, why bother?

Idk, I just can't get into nintendo. Maybe at one point I found their value proposition more attractive, but even in retrospect I often didn't. I often did buy other consoles at the time as well. Sometimes I regret it. Like...for all the talk of crapping on nintendo, honestly? I NEVER liked Sony. I think that their exclusive franchises are boring AF, and yeah. I dont even know why everyone loved the PS2. I bought one out of peer pressure and in retrospect wish i had an xbox or gamecube instead. but I digress. The point is, nintendo has been increasingly unattractive to me as we entered the digital age with us trending toward a more unified ecosystem in the 360/PS3 days. And yeah it has been that long. You could at least make an argument for them in the SNES era, the N64 era, the gamecube era, but after that it was like....okay....you got underpowered consoles, poor third party support, Im literally cutting myself off from the rest of the gaming ecosystem just to play a handful of franchises I like. I just never found it viable. Get with the digital age nintendo, it's just long enough. You guys are like the apple of gaming. And not in a good way. More in a "walled garden" kind of way. 

WTF did Donald get us into?

 So, I just saw this Kyle Kulinski clip talking about the Iran war, and how this is representing a major geopolitical shift in the world that is showing the weakness of the US to the rest of the world, as well as possibly the ascent of Iran as a minor world power. 

And...idk, I've been thinking about something along these lines recently too. I don't know, at this stage of the game, how we can reasonably back out of this Iran war. Iran is throwing demands around. We can't realistically meet a lot of the demands without great costs to ourselves and the world economy. And uh, if they dont wanna back down and sign for peace without the demands, then that means we're gonna have to fight them. And while I have no doubt we CAN beat them in an outright slug match, it's not a fight I'd want to take on. It's a lot like NCR beating Mr. House. Sure, if the NCR was fully dedicated to going to war with Mr. House in New Vegas, it could win, but House's strategy was to make doing so costly enough where the NCR wouldn't want to, and then he uses that fact to get concessions out of the NCR. What I'm saying is that we're NCR and Iran is Mr. House here. 

We could invade and occupy Iran, but it's a country 4x as large as Iraq or Afghanistan, with a decentralized government at this point. We can't open the Strait of Hormuz without overwhelming military force that would lead to lots of casualties for us. Iran wants to charge ships to go through so that they can get like half a trillion every year in tax revenue for basically owning a toll road, which goes against the principles of the current global economy. Trump knows this, which is why he's melting down. He just wanted to go in, break some things, declare victory, and get out, but now we're stuck in a quagmire. And yeah. It's like we're screwed. 

if we fight the war, we might start drafting people to get the manpower. That's gonna be very costly in terms of lives and dollars, but it might also ensure that Trump loses by supermajority numbers. If he does peace, it's gonna involve making concessions to Iran, which will empower them and weaken us. And yeah, he opened Pandora's box with this war. This was a monumentally stupid decision. And our military itself is governed by absolute morons. Trump wanted "Hitler's Generals", and he got them. He got brown nosers like Pete Kegsbreath running everything and they have NO FRICKING CLUE what they're doing. None at all. His attempts to install mindlessly loyal people has caused massive brain drain, and we're losing expertise like crazy. Of course, anyone sane would've told him not to go to war in the first place, but this is Trump we're talking about. He's the twitter reel president. He wants to see cool videos of things blowing up to post on truth social at 2 AM. And that's how we got here...

I really don't know what the answer is. All I hope is Iran chills a bit by the time we get the next administration in, and they can offer some compromises to make them happy, while helping us maintain power. I wouldn't be opposed to, for example, normalizing relations with them, apologizing for past misconduct, and maybe some reasonable level of reparations. But some of these demands are just...no gos. Like, they're asking too much, and their demands aren't fully reasonable.  We're never gonna close down all military bases in the middle east, we're not gonna go along with their toll idea, while we can normalize relationships now, I suspect a future republican administration would tear it up again since the moron problem goes well beyond trump on that side of the aisle. And...uh...yeah. Trump just completely and utterly screwed us. This isn't good. 

Discussing AOC and purity testing

 Mmmm, leftist infighting controversy....

 So it seems like AOC is kinda reluctant to do a 2028 run because of leftist infighting and purity testing and feeling like the left doesn't really have her back. And I kinda get that. She gets A LOT of open hostility from leftists, and even I ain't afraid to throw down with her on ideology at times (although I do that with everyone). 

But unlike with me, she gets a lot of confrontation DIRECTLY. like people showing up to her town hall calling her a sell out. Her getting in an online spat with Ana Kasperian recently, which is what I think triggered this, and Ana today reacting to this by being overtly hostile. 

As far as Ana goes, I'm just gonna tell her to chill TF out. It's fine to have policy and ideological disagreements with her. But honestly, I'm over the far left's Israel-Palestine purity testing. THey're just not gonna let go that she voted for the Iron Dome funding that one time. And for me, who cares. Again, my own take is that I generally dont care about israel, I'm only caring more now because they're costing us elections and inserting themselves into our foreign policy to an uncomfortable degree and I'd kinda like them to F off. But yeah. I dont really side with israel, I dont really side with palestine. I recognize both factions are genocidal religious maniacs, and while I did see Israel as a lesser evil in a "Tenpenny in Tenpenny Tower" kind of way (with the palestinians being Roy Phillips, yeah I'm on a roll with fallout comparisons today), honestly, their recent actions have cost them reputation/karma with me to put it in a fallout kind of way and they're now "shunned" by me if that makes sense. But a lot of leftists are far more fanatical than me over it, and while Ana and TYT are often more moderate and reasonable these days, chastising the "max left" for purity tests on other issues, man, they turn into the Max Left on palestine. Really, they do. 

Honestly, i think it's easier for me to accept AOC's voting on the topic. I mean, i dont have strong opinions on the topic, and Im only dragged kicking and screaming to develop stronger opinions because Israel is interfering with our politics in ways I view negative and dragging us into unproductive forever wars I want nothing to do with. I dont care if she funded the iron dome, and prior to the last 2-3 years, I'd be more sympathetic toward them.  It's like whatever. 

Now, that's not to say I don't have disagreements. I was VERY critical of her in 2024 when she did the whole "work had dignity" crap in promoting a harris presidency. I still stand by that and think it is a black mark against her, but to be fair my own politics are niche enough I have trouble finding anyone I'm NOT gonna chastise on THAT one, so...whatever.

And that's...at the end of the day, how I view 2028. Sure, I'd like someone better than AOC, but who? Who is in a position to run? Who is gonna have the right ideals? The right ideology? The only one who comes to mind is Andrew yang, and he's horribly flawed in other ways. 

I mean, if the democrats are NCR, then AOC is at least the version of the NCR I would probably be more sympathetic to than house. Because she aint perfect, but she wants to do SOME good, and at least she's not entirely fricking useless. I understand that politicians in office kind of have to make decisions and sometimes these decisions are sub optimal or dont make everyone happy. But at the end of the day, the real question is, do they do a good enough job to keep supporting? 

When I look at a 2028 AOC run, I have to ask, okay, if not her, then who? And that's the thing about AOC. She's one of the best positioned people to run. She has the best progressive credentials just about of anyone running, and we can criticize her for the next 2.5 years, but at the end of the day, do you have someone better? And for me, I dont care about israel/palestine, so that doesnt motivate me. Again, my big thing is UBI and moving away from this dumb work fetishization thing we got going. And AOC aint gonna deliver THAT, but she's gonna do a lot of good. Sometimes you gotta support what's available, and if you dont like your options, maybe run yourself. I probably wont do that because hey, I cant see myself having the mental fortitude to put up with the rigors of campaigning and governing, so I just pick fights from the sidelines, but hey, at least Im honest about it, and at least I'm willing to say "okay, this is the next best thing" when I dont get what I want.

AOC is the "next best thing" right now. Again, anyone have a problem with her, name someone better. If they're someone I find agreeable, I'll support them. I mean, we could argue Ro Khanna. We can argue Andrew yang. I know I saw some dude on reddit asking policy advice recently who was thinking of running on FDR's economic bill of rights (they were for UBI but seemed to drop it which disappointed me). I mean....again. At the end of the day, we gotta find someone and push for them. They might not be everything we want. We're ALL making sacrifices here. And if I can put aside whatever grievances I have over work fetishization to support AOC...well....the way I see it, leftists should suck it up about palestine. 

I know, I know, democracy belongs to the voters, we can't force people to support AOC, but then on a personal level, I'll say this. if you get TOO obnoxiously purity testy, you're never gonna find anyone, youre never gonna be happy, and no one is ever gonna try to appeal to you or listen to you ever. You're kinda giving more ammo to the centrist wing of the party that suggests ignoring leftists because they're never satisfied and instead tries to appeal to suburban moderates. 

So...your choice. As I see it, given the alternatives to AOC right now are the likes of harris, buttigieg, or newsom....come on, can we all admit that AOC is worlds better here? She's probably the best shot progressives have, even if she's not all things to all people all at once.  

Discussing NCR vs Mr House again (Vegas Factions Part 2)

 So...I decided to start a new vegas playthrough after a friend of mine started playing the game. And this time, I wanna do things a bit differently. Last time we discussed this topic, we eliminated two of the factions as the best new vegas had to offer, but I was still rather mixed on the other two, and still am conflicted. We can agree, the Legion is too grotesque to be a good faction. And while I'm typically a left libertarian "Yes man" ending type...well...we kinda saw the consequences of that outcome in the TV show. And it didnt end well. The strip was unable to defend itself from a deathclaw attack as it seemed like House's securiton army seemed to disappear. And that's the problem with the Yes man ending. The courier had no interest in governing, he kinda just screwed off after the credits of New Vegas, leaving the region in a state of disarray. Yes man went offline, and the securitron army just...never did anything to do the bare minimum to keep order.

Mr House 

With that said, in this play through, we're left with the other two factions to choose between. Mr House and NCR. Both factions represent competing ideologies. Mr House is basically the ideal right libertarian. Vegas is his little homestead, his "property." He maintains his own monopoly on force in defending it. He does F all for the people of vegas, but he does largely leave them alone. Some would argue he did go out and kill other factions that got in his way. But...they also got in his way. A lot of people hate him because he refused to sign a peace deal with the BoS, but the BoS is itself a techno-fascist organization that believes technology is dangerous and no one should have it but them. And given Mr House wields a huge robot army, well, you can see the conflict. And people also hate him for killing off the kings in some of the endings, but let's face it, the kings are basically a raider gang who themselves kinda strike me the wrong way. Like they're like "this water pump is property of the king." Like, who tf put you in charge? You could also ask, who put house in charge, but he was there since before the war, and he did save vegas from annhilation.

A lot of criticism of house also comes from the fact that he recruited the 3 families and those guys are themselves raider gangs. But...to be fair, after having conversations with him in game about it, it was a power play. He needed their muscle to offset NCR aggression, given the NCR is...well....not very nice either all things considered. I'll get to them. But yeah, there is a negative there. The white gloves are cannibals. The omertas are mobsters who do a lot of prostitution and sex trafficking. The chairmen of the tops are pretty decent though in my book. Probably the most family friendly casino on the strip. But yeah, they're not angels, and mr house knows that. He just made do with the people at his disposal, which were a bunch of raider gangs who he "civilized" somewhat. Sometimes a lot of our discussions of power are wrapped up in the language of "civilized vs uncivilized." It's easy to bash the "uncivilized", but to give a pass to the "civilized." While I would argue there can be a moral difference at times, as the "civilized" tend to have political theory to somewhat justify their claims, the uncivilized tend to be far more up front. It really does keep coming down to starfield's emissary or hunter. One tends to rely on pretexts and the other relies on just force. IN this case, both Mr House and NCR are emissaries of their own choosing, with their own vision. One with their ideas rooted in old world democracy, and the other in basically being a right libertarian 23rd century equivalent of seasteading.

In a way, Mr House is attractive to me given my libertarian leanings. Back when I played the game for the first time, i WAS a right libertarian. Now I'm a left libertarian, but yeah, that libertarian streak is kinda vibing with house again if the yes man ending is truly a bad option. Because he's the minarchist option. He's the dude who establishes his property, and otherwise leaves you alone. He's not interested in governing the affairs of peoples' lives, just in ruling the strip, making money off of the NCR, who he sees as his customers, and ultimately, bringing back technology and exploring the stars. But otherwise he leaves you alone. And it's kinda like the yes man ending, but this guy rules his little area and as long as you dont interfere, he's not likely to bug you. Sure, he represents capitalism's excesses at times. He's the "job creator" who "saves" people from poverty by offering them work and caps and luxuries, but without him, there are no luxuries. In a way, his vision for society is one where his anarcho capitalism basically works and stands out from the blight of the rest of the wasteland.

And unlike actual capitalism, it's not really forced on everyone. Like, I kinda have to consider like, Widerquist's big casino here. Ya know, we heard the story, what if nevada as a "big casino" full of small casinos and you HAVE to participate in the "big casino" in some form, because they occupy all land. That's the source of unfreedom in modern day society. Capitalism was a system imposed on us where everyone had to work, and cant even go anywhere where the system isnt implemented. With mr house, you dont have a "big casino" that spans the entire mojave. You have a "small casino" that you can ignore if you dont like it. Its existence is a net positive over its nonexistence. I mean, omertas suck, but would you rather deathclaws occupying gomorrah as shown in the TV show? Yeah...

Now, there's one final issue here we should discuss before moving onto the NCR and that's the fact that...this guy is somewhat amenable to NCR existing. He has no huge quarrel with the NCR, he just wants to be the top dog in the region as far as force goes. He sees NCR as his customers. And sure, he is kinda predatory in that regard, securing hoover dam and charging high rates for water and power, but he also needs the power for his strip as well. And we saw how well house fared when he had no power. Remember how in the show he needed cold fusion to power himself again? Yeah...

And that's also another thing. In the show he was kinda scummy as well with the nueralink type stuff (hello elon musk comparison), but he also was very interested in saving humanity from the bombs, and he IS really intelligent. Even if taken out of the picture, he's not really dead because he digitized himself as a contingency. Dude really is a genius who thinks of everything. So idk. I mean, Mr House aint perfect, none of the factions are. People accuse him of being a despot, but he's also kinda just homesteading the vegas strip and controlling hoover dam, doing stuff with it, and mostly leaving everyone else alone. He doesnt help them, sure, but unless youre a threat to him, he's not inclined to hurt you either. He's as close to a yes man ending that you're gonna get, without the actual downsides of the yes man ending. He kinda represents the status quo as shown in the game. NCR to the west, legion to the east, he serves as a buffer zone while being somewhat amenable to the NCR and liking them as customers. But yeah. Just a business guy who wants to do his own thing. He does the bare minimum to keep order around the strip. But otherwise leaves people alone. Again, he's not Widerquist's "big casino", he's a "little casino", and if you dont like his rules, go LITERALLY ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WASTELAND. I mean, in his ending, it's open. You can go to goodsprings, primm, novac, etc and he's likely to leave you alone. Quite frankly, if I weren't mr house's super special employee, I'd probably just live in novac if I were in the new vegas universe. 

 NCR

 So...this brings us to the NCR. And...idk, the NCR is a faction I WANNA like, but I DONT like. Basically, they're trying to bring back old world law and order to the wasteland. They're democratic, they have human rights. What bring law and order, I mean, what's not to like? A lot...actually...

The NCR is basically the strongest endorsement of Ronald Reagan's words about big government. Government doesn't work, the worst words in the english language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." The NCR is deeply flawed. it's very bureaucratic. it's very inept, and the fact that they need a courier's help at all is, IMO, a great stain on their reputation. When you deal with the NCR, you kinda have to do EVERYTHING for them. Powder gangers on the loose? Well we cant stop them, we're spread too thin. But gee, you can do it if you want, we'll pay you. Btw, can we just talk about the powder gangers for a sec? These guys are NCR convicts bought into Eastern California/Western Nevada to be like a chain gang working in the quarry junction area to mine stuff for the NCR. So basically, it is slave labor, but to be fair, it's after conviction for a crime. And let's face it, we have that in our real world too (see the 13th amendment...). But yeah, they get free, start running rampant, and they can't do F all to stop the powder gangers. So they bring these prisoners in, but can't do anything to stop them when they break out. So they terrorize the wasteland, causing problems for goodsprings and primm. So much for making the roads safe....

Like, seriously. You had ONE JOB. And that's why I kinda hate the NCR even if I vibe with their ideals in the real world. They are SO hopelessly incompetent. They cant do anything, they need to hire the courier as an outsider "independent contractor" so to speak just to make the system work, because they're drowning in their own bureaucracies and ineptitude. I havent done EVERYTHING with the NCR this play through. but here's a list of things that I have.

I had to investigate Nipton because the soldiers had orders to stay at their little I15 gateway in the south west of the map. 

I had to fix their helios one power plant issue because they hired a guy with "a theoretical degree in physics" who has no idea what he's doing. 

I had to basically attack nelson by myself, which was easy enough. Sure they give you 3 guys, but because I just went in there and massacred all the legion people because the legion declared war on me, it was easy enough. 

I had to deal with the boomers, the kings, the great khans. Btw, more in the khans later when I wax about libertarian political philosophy later and the whole big vs small casino distinction. 

I mean, I gotta do EVERYTHING for these people. Because all their people are subject to crappy rules that dont work, and I'm not. Im an outsider who does whatever I want. And I get results. Unlike them...and their rules...and bureaucracies. I mean, Mr House needs you too, but hes 200 years old and obviously cant do everything with robots, so what's their excuse? They got people, but they can't do like ANYTHING for themselves.

And idk. I guess that's the BIG reason I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth whenever i play new vegas. They are so inept they can't even deliver on the basic premises that justify their existence, namely, security. Even if i wanna sympathize with them, it's like, they're just so F-ed up I can't. And given the history of the mojave diverges from the IRL world in a lot of ways...idk. Im not as sympathetic to them.

Like...to go into more theory now...if we trace the history of states, we basically have a long history of tribes turning into civilizations, the civilizations being evil and imperialistic, and then, over time, reforming themselves through democracies and rights and the rule of law stuff to be better. It's an iterative process, and in my real world politics, I'm working from the current point in time with the current issues. As I always say, I feel like we're stuck in an era where we have an "old book" problem, and my 21st century vision is intended to be an iterative shift toward something better.

But...let's face it, nuclear apocalypse throws everything out the window and you kinda need a new book just for that. The NCR is an attempt to resurrect the old world, but is the old world was is really needed? In the TV show, lucy put it like this, one side (the legion) is raping and murdering people, and the other is "vaguely problematic." And I get that if you're choosing between a duopoly, the NCR is better, but there are FOUR options in new vegas, not 2. And keep in mind, I hate just voting for lesser evils I dont vibe with. I might do it in the real world because the republican party is literally turning into some weird mix of mr house's worst elements and the legion, and the democrats are well...they're NCR....but as you know, I HATE the democrats. And likewise, I'd only support a faction as bad as the NCR if I had no other choice. Like if it was them, or the legion, I'd go for them. But because third options are possible, I'm weighing them instead.

At this point, after seeing how a truly independent new vegas went, I'd be inclined to support NCR over that. So they're in the top 2. But are they really better than Mr House?

I mean, in theory, they provide more stability. They're democratic. But they're also imperialistic. They are clearly overextended, leading to the problems they regularly have. Im not sure they can properly hold the new vegas area based on their state in the game. I mean, again, they're failing to provide security. But they still want their taxes I take it.

And that's the thing. A lot of the vaguely problematic stuff comes from taxes and just...their expansionist nature. While in the game, people often vote to be protected by the NCR (see primm), it's far from the only choice. You can find different forms of law from others if you want too. Again, it seems like most people in new vegas are just useless without the courier. Like you gotta do everything for everyone. I guess that's the point of an RPG, but yeah, we see how far this can go with like the minutemen in 4 too. "Another settlement needs your help." Yeah. I refuse to even do anything with the minutemen after my first play through because of that stuff. 

Idk. Anyway...back to the expansionism. There's an argument that the NCR is just as bad as the other factions but they justify it with their grand old world moral theories. When you play as them, youre acting like a CIA hitman just taking out anyone who threatens their power, just like mr house. They care little about the feelings of some who oppose them in their territory. I aint even talking full blown raider gangs, but also the more grey area ones like the great khans. Remember bitter springs? yeah. Of course, bitter springs was somewhat justified because, again, raider gang, but yeah. Idk. It kind of serves as a talking point. As moral as the NCR portrays themselves, they're just as thuggish as anyone else push comes to shove and really lack the moral high ground.

And a big issue I have is they ARE the big casino. If they take over the mojave, it's gonna be annexed. Everyone is gonna have to pay taxes, get jobs, they're gonna adjudicate who gets what, and they'll use legal violence to do so. Ultimately, the wasteland will become civilized, with no part of it left untouched. And then everyone will be subjected to their bureaucracy.

And honestly, that's a question I have to ask, do I want to bring the old world back, given how flawed this iteration of it is? Idk. I mean, again, in the real world, a lot of my views on democracy and rule of law are from my socialization. I legitimately believe that stuff regardless, but I am aware of the flaws. And I also am aware of our history as a species. Im aware that to get to this point, we had to genocide the native americans, enslave black people. Conquest. Enslavement. That's ultimately our legacy. We call ourselves civilized now, and we tend to retroactively apply these ideals that work within our current context to the past. But honestly, if I lived in the distant past, I could see myself opposing "civilization." I wouldnt want the rules, the bureaucracy, the coercion to work, especially if I lived in an alternative tribal society that was just socialized differently. So idk. Again, NCR is the BIG casino from widerquist's analogy, not the SMALL casino. The difference being the ability to escape and live a different way, as opposed to a system in which we all live the same way. 

So idk. Maybe I just find the idea of bringing back the old world in the fallout world to be unattractive? And then as a courier who does have all this agency, and watches all the NPCs have none, I start developing more conservative attitudes of "I can make something of myself, why can't you?" And that's part of it too. My life experiences in my current life make me liberal, living in a more "late stage" civilized world where government is a certainty, it's just a matter of what we get and what it looks like. Given that certainty, I'm fine with advocating for a system where we all have a say in how we're ruled and we're all given both economic and physical security that allows us to pursue our own happiness. Im fine with pushing my ideals from within civilization and government. 

But that's not the fallout world. And given choosing the NCR is totally voluntary, and given how the legion is NOT the only alternative, idk. Again, maybe if the NCR wasn't so F-ed up, I would be more sympathetic to them. But all I'm seeing is all of the burdens that come with civilization, and none of the benefits. if we could argue that the NCR made people safer that would be one thing. but they very much don't. And given the burdens of civilization, well, sometimes that can put people in dangerous situations too. We love to ignore state violence via compulsion in these instances. Someone has to be patrolling the mojave. Someone has to fight the legion. Someone has to clear out quarry junction. And if it isnt you, it's gonna be a bunch of people who are just ordered to their deaths. I mean, if you listen to the people in the NCR the whole game, there's a lot of complaints. A lot of low morale. A lot of talk about how they fear dying. A lot of suicidal ideation. These guys are NOT okay. And maybe defeating the legion will restore morale and things will get better. Idk. To me it seems like their internal contradictions are so great that idk, whatever benefits they purport to have just ain't it. 

Decision time

This brings me to the final point: NCR or House? Last time I leaned NCR based on democracy and rule of law vs libertarian autocracy, but after replaying the game, and really thinking about it, I REALLY dont like the NCR. I mean, again, I'm a yes man guy at heart, I support an independent vegas, but I also want a tad more security than the independent vegas would offer. Basically, I would rather have a status quo than a revolutionary change to the wasteland. On paper, the NCR should be the best faction, but idk, they're just so unlikeable, and in this environment, I kinda operate closer to my previous right wing conservative ideals of small government and minarchy rather than supporting the big bloated and ineffective government of the NCR. While real world circumstances shifted me left in the real world, in the video game universe, you can see me reverting to more conservative thinking here. Like, ya know, thinking a real world elon musk is preferable to a corrupt and inept government. But again, it's just how exaggeratedly bad the NCR really is here that puts me off I think. Like it's all the faults of a bloated and inept government, and not even the most basic of benefits. Again, they cant even keep the roads safe from raiders in their own territory. They just let the legion and powder gangers run amok. Idk. Honestly, if I dont feel like I'm getting anything out of government, what's the point of it existing? And the courier definitely needs no government. The whole point of the courier is he's the main character who isnt subject to the NCR's rules and has the flexibility to do everything for them.

Heck, that's the whole point of you being the pivotal variable in deciding who controls vegas. All of the factions have their faults, and all are bogged down in their own respective ways. It literally just takes a guy who puts his mind to something and isnt subject to those same limitations to make it happen. And that's you, the main character. 

I guess, in a way, it's the way new vegas is written that makes me feel so negatively about NCR then. I mean, yeah, they're better than the legion, but that's like saying the democrats are better than republicans, and i HATE the democrats. And just because one option is bad, doesnt mean the other is good. The NCR is, very much, a lesser evil in a dualistic kinda way. And that's my response to lucy and her "vaguely problematic" line. Yeah, in a vacuum, the NCR is superior to the people who wanna rape, enslave, and murder everyone horribly. That's not saying much though. That's the bare minimum. If legion control was a certainty and supporting a "third party" was "throwing away our vote", and it really did come down to me, yeah, NCR I guess. Kinda like trump's fascism is making me HAVE to support the dems, whether I like them or not (I really, REALLY don't). 

But....with house being a viable third option? And my previous third option (none of the above, anarchy) not being viable because of the problematic implications in the TV show....yeah, I'd give Mr House a chance I think. He's mostly interested in just turning vegas into his little ancap corporate micro state and has few ambitions beyond it. And he actually does promise to use his rule to do good like bring back civilization in his own ways, while mostly leaving people alone. I aint saying he's perfect. He's not. As others have pointed out, the game is written where there isnt an easy good ending. And outside of legion, which is the definite bad option, the others are relative. And until recently, yes man seemed decent too. 

So idk. I think I'll go with Mr House as the best of the three options. I feel like if he remained in control of the strip, the worst aspects of the TV show's yes man ending would've been avoided, without changing much else. And who knows, given the other pre war elements at work like the enclave, he could be a useful ally, since house IS thinking much bigger than most people would. Even the courier. And he IS aware of the pre war world and the likes of the enclave and could serve as a useful future buffer not just against legion and NCR expansionism, but also the enclave doing crap too. House is smart in that regard. I mean, he would fight anyone who threatened him or vegas. And is he enclave decided to mess with him, he would go to war against the enclave, and while i doubt he could win on his own, by being able to rout both the NCR and legion, he shows that he's willing to put up a fight.

Maybe a House victory here isn't eternal. Maybe it would give the NCR the punch in the nose they need to improve over 20 years where by the time the TV show happens, he can work with the NCR against the enclave. After all, he's not inherently hostile to NCR existing. he just wants to remain in control of the mojave and not have to be subjected to their bureaucratic nonsense. As he would say, "why would i hate the NCR, they're my best customers!" So yeah. Idk. I think I'll go house this time. Back to my 2010 thinking again...

How much should a next gen console cost?

 So...again. I honestly think gaming is at a crisis point in terms of pricing. Underlying this crisis point is the death of affordable computing, and the destruction of the low end market over the past few years. It's what's driving the whole "peak gaming" thing I mentioned. Again, it's like peak oil, but for gaming. With peak oil, basically, oil production fails to keep up with rising demand due to supply limitations, driving up cost. Kinda like now, but less "Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz" and more "we literally can't get enough out of the ground to sustain economic growth at the rate we used to in the past." In a sane economy, we would simply grow less, and use the period of stagnation to reorient our society away from growth toward other optimizations like working less, having a better distribution of wealth, etc. Ya know, those good old humanistic capitalist ideals that I support on this blog.

But...ideological capitalism is like a mental illness. It thinks infinite growth on a finite planet is possible, and keeps trying to push boundaries, even though the boundaries are very clearly pushing back with obvious price signals suggesting that this isn't sustainable. This is the crisis we face now, as we seem to be expecting a new generation of consoles soon despite the hardware that powers a PS5 or Xbox Series X being relatively expensive, and actually getting more expensive. Normally during a console's lifespan, price goes DOWN. A console releases at, say, $500, it goes down to like $250 or even less by the time it reaches the end of its lifespan. These days the opposite is happening. The PS5 is going UP to $650. The 10 year old switch 1 is going UP to $330. The Xbox Series X has already gone UP to around $600-650 too. And then there's talk of them releasing new consoles NEXT YEAR. 

Honestly, with RAMpocalypse causing hardware prices to go wild, and with it spiraling out to affect GPUs, SSDs, etc., I don't even wanna HEAR about a next gen console next year. There is debate over release, some suggest we're still on for 2027, although some suggest a later 2028-2030 time window to allow this current crisis to blow over, which I think is wise. I mean, with tech advancing so slowly, and with it being so expensive, I don't think think it's economically realistic to release a next gen console any time soon. Because let's face it. Let's discuss what, barring RAMpocalypse, the prices should be for a console.

Nintendo

Nintendo already released their next gen console, the switch 2, at $450. I consider this eyewatering given Nintendo is the "cheap" option. I mean, historically, they've charged $200-300, even well into the modern era. And while you get worse hardware, that's to be expected. People who buy Nintendo should know what they get: an underpowered console that's cheap, has great first party support, but poor third party support due to the specs disparity with the other consoles. I mean, if we go by inflation calculator, here are some suggested price points:

Gamecube- $200 ($373)

GBA-  $100 ($186)

DS- $150 ($262)

Wii- $250 ($409)

3DS- $170 (going by discount since it sold poorly at $250) ($250)

Wii U-  $300 (once again going by discount) ($431)

Switch- $300 ($404)

Obviously, I'd prefer to keep the price lower, but honestly, it looks like if you go handheld, the highest acceptable price is around $250, and for a console, around $400. At $450, the switch 2 is a little overpriced. I'd honestly prefer to keep it lower, especially given it IS a handheld more or less, albeit a clunky one. Speaking of which a huge criticism I have of the switch 2 is that it is basically like both a weak and underpowered console AND a big, bulky, overpriced handheld. It's trying to do both, it does them poorly, and yeah, huge reason I'm not a fan. I'd rather see a $250 handheld, or a $400 console. Not a $450-500 hybrid. But I digress. 

With that said, let's focus on the other consoles.

Playstation and Xbox

So let's go by the pricing over the past few generations.

Playstation 2- $300 ($575)

Xbox- $300 ($560)

Playstation 3- $600 (overpriced)- $982

Xbox 360- $400 ($676)

Playstation 4- $400 ($567)

Xbox One X- $500 ($708)

Playstation 5- $500 ($637)

Xbox One X- $500 ($637)

Xbox One S-  $300 ($382)

All in all, even with inflation, the MAXIMUM we can realistically sustain is a $700 next gen console. That's the MAXIMUM suggested price. I'd probably be more inclined to go $600-650. 

But...again, this is what CURRENT GEN HARDWARE still costs. And it's only gone up.

We're seeing talk of the equivalent steam machine being close to $900-1000, and that was before RAMpocalypse. And that thing has around PS5/Xbox Series X capabilities. 

I mean, to build a similar PC, we're talking around $1k, even before RAMpocalypse, we were still talking around $700-800 or so. 

How the everloving fudge are we gonna be seeing next gen consoles next year at an affordable price? And what are PC gamers like myself gonna have to pay to play on par with these machines? It literally took 2-3 years into the current gen's hardware cycle just for prices to normalize from COVID.  

Honestly, again, if the market was sane, I'd just suggest putting it off a few years. Currently, to get an equivalent PS5/Xbox Series X level GPU, it costs around $300 by itself. That's what a 5050 costs right now. Alternatively you can buy a 6650 XT which is...quite literally, about what's in the PS5 exactly. And those are the cheapest GPUs worth buying in the current market. You can maybe get by with a cheaper 3050, but the 3050 quite frankly sucks and is worse than current gen consoles. 

RAM, 16 GB is currently like $200 and 32 GB is like $400. This is why current gen is getting more expensive. Are we really gonna be pushing for an upgrade to what exists in the current market?

Thankfully, a console like CPU is cheap AF, i mean, something like a ryzen 5500 for like $100 probably does the job. But given the platform costs associated with it, that's where the money is.

And next gen is apparently supposed to use like a 12 core X3D CPU so i'm imagining like a 9900 X3D or something, something most PC gamers dont have. The GPU is expected to be 3x the PS5's, so...let's go 3x a 6650 XT. We're talking something like a 5080 or 4090 here. That's a fricking $1k+ card by itself. 

Again, is it just me, or is this BANANAS?!

Like wtf, how can we actually sustain a next gen console price wise? The current generation has 6 year old hardware, and the price has gone UP to what a next gen console should cost, not DOWN. 6 years into a console's lifespan, they should be practically giving these things away for $250, while being able to replicate a console 6-8x as powerful as the previous one's at the previous one's general MSRP. That's the pattern of growth we saw in the past.

But again, things aren't growing like in the past. We've hit a wall. We've hit "peak gaming" or "peak computing" or whatever you wanna call it. And these nutcases keep trying to push boundaries further. Oh, we need BETTER games, that require BETTER (more expensive hardware to run), are MORE EXPENSIVE to make, TAKE LONGER due to the complexity involved, and probably COST MORE too. And, because of the income disparity in this country, someone will pay it. This consumerist society of ours is falling apart at the seams. I mean, we call it the K shaped economy, but let's talk about what that means. It means the wealthy are doing very well, and everyone else isn't. And that's the problem. We used to have the middle class be the main consumers of these goods and services. Consoles would be the envy of every middle class household. But let's talk about what middle class was always like.

It meant having ONE of the two to four competitors' consoles. Maybe one handheld. And you'd get maybe 10-15 games over the lifespan of a console. That's what life was like for most of us gamers growing up. And then, in the late 2000s/early 2010s, stuff became increasingly affordable to some degree, but now it's getting more expensive in the 2020s, where we're regressing back to the 90s and earlier when gaming was a lot more exclusive and increasingly a more upper class thing. And yeah. 

Anyway, I wanted to make this because I ran into the "but but inflation" morons again online, and wanted to actually explain my thoughts on it. As it stands, I really would rather see the current generation be extended a few more years. Maybe even to 2030, depending on how things go. We're NOT in a good state for a next gen console. Current gen hardware has NEVER gone down in price, and the next generation is inevitably just going to be more expensive outright.

I think...in the current environment, the next generation should cost around as much as what the current gen does NOW. So...we're talking $650ish for a PS6 or Xbox 5, and I think the switch 2 should go down to around $400ish. 

If we release a next gen console for $1000, it's LITERALLY gonna be "$599 US dollars" all over again. Those of us who are in our 30s and gamers will know what I'm referencing there (PS3, E3, 2006...the price flopped, to say the least, and it drove people to xbox instead). And yeah, with inflation, that's what it is. That $400 price point back then is closer to $600-700 now. And yeah. I say, no more than $700. And ideally, I'd like to see $600-650ish. 

And keep in mind, I'm not a console gamer myself, but as a PC gamer who tends to upgrade my hardware generally once a console generation, and who generally likes to target at least that gen's hardware, if not a bit above it to account for optimization, I gotta be able to build affordably. 

CPU wise....well CPUs arent bad, but a 12 core zen 6 X3D CPU is gonna be pushing it. That's probably $450 minimum given what the 9800X3D costs now. RAM....don't even go there, but hypothetically let's say I can reuse my 32 GB DDR5 for that. Okay. 

GPU wise...again....that's the kicker. How the everloving fudge is a 40 Tflop GPU gonna be affordable to average consumers given a 12 Tflop PS5 tier GPU STILL costs $300? I mean, this is just unworkable. Even before RAMpocalypse, $300 was like....a 5060 which is 50% more performance. Maybe for $400 you could get a 9060 XT with 16 GB RAM. But yeah. Even that's kinda pushing boundaries on price.

Honestly, I say, let it ride. Current gen is fine. Let it ride until 2030ish. We used to release consoles every 4-5 years. Now even 7 is seeming too short. I welcome a 10 year console standard. It's the only way we can account for the market as it is without just being like "lol F middle class consumers, let's release something only rich people can buy." 

Reminder: the idea that our social contract works as expected is the bare minimum

 So, this is somewhat related to the topic yesterday about AIPAC and the democrats being moderate wimps. Vaush also had a few segments on this, and on this, I'm mostly responding to the section where Elissa Slotkin was speaking and Vaush was dunking on her. This is more economic in nature. Basically, Slotkin didn't come off too bad here, for a democrat I mean, but I have relatively low expectations of democrats. Vaush came out swinging though, and he was dunking on her for pushing the same old liberal BS and stuff. 

I mean, I get it, but....democrats be democrats, right? I like vaush starting to sound like past me on this. I'm only more moderate sounding because...again...with the bar being so low it's literally "just stop the fascism" at this point, I'm kind of looking the other way on stuff. But I did want to reiterate a point I made in a few other posts over the years.

Liberals have this idea of a social contract. They think, well, you put in the time and work the appropriate number of hours a week, and we'll make sure you're taken care of. We act like this is a super progressive position given the alternative in recent decades is basically "we dont care how much to work, if you don't earn enough to live then screw you, have you tried not being poor?" And no, given the touchy political environment, I'm not gonna touch the warehouse fire guy. I mean, I don't support that sort of crap obviously. But I do think, when that bare minimum isn't met, then, well, people sometimes radicalize and that's how you get ACTUAL terrorists. Just an FYI to any FBI agents who might be reading this because I'm on Trump's NSPM-7 craplist. You might wanna focus on like, ACTUAL terrorists here. Not just watching anyone who dares speak out against das fuhrer like you're the pre crime division from the minority report. Ya know, I actually studied criminology before, right? Yeah...so I feel justified in giving an opinion here. If you care about terrorism, go after actual terrorists, not just random people who dare express their political opinions on the internet. 

Anyway, I don't endorse that guy. But I do want to talk about this liberal social contract thing. So...liberals have this idea of a social contract. You work, you get taken care of. Much better than, you work, and screw you anyway, but yeah. Again, it's kind of the bare minimum position, ya know? I mean, you put in the time, you get the benefits back and can afford a comfortable life. If anything, it's a bit quaint at this point. People might wonder, well, what do you suggest, we just give people stuff for not working? ....yes?

I mean, here's my argument. if it's absolutely essential for people to be working all of the time, that's one thing. But, we literally have an economic where the main political debate for most of my life has been "creating jobs." like, we literally talk about creating work and coming up for stuff for people to do, so they can earn a paycheck. Why? because we always did things that way and you dont want free stuff do you? Like, liberals do that a lot. "We don't hate hard work." I do. "We don't want it easy." I do. "We want free stuff." I do! I mean, I'm tired of acting like these are radical statements. This job thing never appealed to me. It's always been like, "okay, if things HAVE to be this way for society to function, that's one thing." but for me, it feels almost 80s Sovietesque. ya know...."I pretend to work and they pretend to pay me"? Like the whole thing is just a farce we still do. It doesn't work, it never actually worked. FDR might've made it kinda sorta work as a huge band aid on capitalism to preserve the system, but as I know, we didn't have to go that way either. 

And that's the thing. As technology improves economic efficiency...maybe instead of obsessing over "job creation", we focus on, ya know, working less? or making work more voluntary? I mean, I've discussed all of this before. And given the K shaped economy, the fact that what Andrew Yang warned us about is happening, how our society seems to be coming apart at the seams...well...yeah. Maybe we need a new social contract for a new century. Maybe that involves UBI. Maybe it involves working less. Maybe both. Either way, I would agree, just insisting on the bare minimum social contract isn't good enough IMO. It's not gonna solve the problems we have. It's not gonna fix society. Maybe it will allow us to keep hobbling on while the fascists keep making ground, because let's face it, their rise to power is ANOTHER cry for help in this sick and dysfunctional society we're living in. But yeah.

Here's what I fear from the dems. We go into 2026 and 2028, win big simply due to being the opposition party. Then...we lose again in 2030 and 2032. And then the fascists come back. And they're worse next time. Because they're the real radical threat that this country is facing. They're the real terrorists. Ya know? And maybe they actually succeed in turning us into a dictatorship for good, putting political opposition in camps, yada yada.

So...my message for those running in 2028 in particular....we gotta do better. We gotta pull a new New Deal out of our butts here and FAST. our own "Project 2029" if you will, which yes, Slotkin talked about and I liked that language. But again, rather than just trying to restore this flawed and broken social contract...I say we write a new one that works with our modern reality. As I see it, the modern economy and the modern job is no longer working. Job creation aint working. Our idea of the economy is fundamentally broken. We gotta rewrite the rules entirely. This doesn't mean abolishing capitalism, fyi, just evolving it. UBI, shorter work weeks, those are still capitalism, just a new form of progressive capitalism centered around updating things for a new century. 

Or we can stick to the same old ideas and watch society sink like the Titanic, which is what the past 10 years have felt like to me. *puts on Celine Dion out of pure 90s nostalgia*