this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2026
212 points (98.6% liked)

Games

49743 readers
899 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Rules

1. Submissions have to be related to games

Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.

This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.

2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.

We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.

3. No excessive self-promotion

Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.

This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.

4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.

We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.

5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.

No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.

6. No linking to piracy

Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.

We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.

Authorized Regular Threads

Related communities

PM a mod to add your own

Video games

Generic

Help and suggestions

By platform

By type

By games

Language specific

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 5 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Because they were charged a tax they shouldn't have been charged. A buyer agreed to the price at retail. A lot of people can probably spot the difference.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 51 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, like Cards Against Humanity spotted the difference and decided to not be anti-consumer asshats.

https://www.fastcompany.com/91500865/tariff-refund-cards-against-humanity-trump

[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

They agreed to the tax by paying it ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] IronKrill@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 hours ago

That is what they said.

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 8 points 2 days ago

I've had worse

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And Nintendo didn't pay the higher rate. They passed the costs over to the consumer. Nintendo got exactly what they paid for.

[–] MufinMcFlufin@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Nintendo got exactly what they didn't pay for and they're getting the refund for it too.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I agree that there is a clear legal distinction, but it leaves a sour taste. Nintendo should have made this right for PR.

Though, on the other side of it, Stargate project is the reason DRAM prices went to the moon, so USA suffering a little is schadenfreude for me and probably Nintendo too.

[–] tmyakal@infosec.pub 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nintendo should have made this right for PR.

Ha! Hahaha! Haha! When the fuck has Nintendo ever worried about PR? They've got their place in the market completely on lock and will open litigation against anyone and everyone who even looks at their IP in a way they don't like. Nintendo could release a console that required a pint of blood every time you boot it up, and as long as a Zelda comes out on it, they'll still sell out.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They did those things, and also gave early 3DS owners a bunch of free games for buying the console during a bad period.

Nintendo are fickle, but this seems like the type of PR thing they'd of been in to.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

That example costs them nothing, assuming it was digital. Nintendo may do something good when the price is $0, but I don't think I've ever seen them do something good for an actual cost.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’d say this argument probably doesn’t apply to something like, say, food. People can’t just opt out of eating. They can change their luxury spending to stuff that’s cheaper and doesn’t have to get imported.

I’d definitely like for this argument to be applied in Nintendo’s case, and I’ll be pleasantly surprised if a judge agrees, I guess I’m a little pessimistic though. Maybe I just have a low view of the justice system right now.

[–] MufinMcFlufin@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Thinking of it as movie tickets, I guess it'd be like if there was suddenly an illegal tax being imposed on every theater to charge an extra 20% per ticket. A customer's $20 ticket becomes $24 and the theater makes up for it by passing that cost 1 to 1 onto the customer. The tax is struck down as illegal and as such the theater sues the government for that $4 per ticket.

Thinking of it this way I think it's strange the theater is suing the government for that $4. The theater chose to upcharge for the same tickets despite the fact that they otherwise would have earned near exactly the same amount otherwise. At best I think they should be suing not for the $4/ticket but lost revenue that would have been incurred from the price increase imposed by the government.

By making headlines that they're suing for that $4/ticket it naturally would give customers the impression that they're entitled to at least a portion of that given the customers are the ones who actually paid that $4/ticket. The theater would have had a negligible difference in costs for operations, real estate, supplies, wages, etc during the period that tax was being imposed, so in theory they should have remained almost exactly as profitable as before, except only that the customer would have $4 less to potentially spend on anything else with their ticket.

I should also add I'm not trying to correct or refute anything you're saying, just kinda thinking about the situation from a different perspective.