Yesterday, I had a fascinating conversation with an economics student friend that completely blew my mind.
I was venting about NS2’s pricing when she casually remarked, “That actually seems pretty fair to me.” I fired back, “Same specs, but a 20,000 yen premium just for language support? Performance upgrades sold separately? Isn’t this daylight robbery of international gamers?” Her instant rebuttal? “Which one of us here actually majors in economics?”
Boom—mic drop moment. That’s when it hit me: not everyone sees the world through the same economic lens. As someone who struggles with economics (and secretly feels insecure about it), I’d always assumed news-following folks shared similar basic economic intuition.
The moment she called the pricing “fair,” my mind instantly painted this vivid picture:
Nintendo’s strategy team gathered around a glowing world map, markers in hand: “Japan’s domestic market needs sweet deals to boost sales. Overseas? Those loyal fans will pay premium—let’s milk that brand power!”
Region-locking + language tax = cleverly disguised market discrimination. Sure, players might grumble, but where else are they gonna go? Monopoly power at its finest!
Performance DLC? Textbook price segmentation! Cater to whales and budget gamers simultaneously—cha-ching goes the quarterly earnings report.
This entire analysis flashed through my brain in nanoseconds.
To me, this reasoning feels as obvious as “weekend chip sales at supermarkets.” No economics degree needed—just glance at Steam’s regional pricing tiers.
But here’s the shocker: my brilliant finance-major friend didn’t share this instinct. Since when did “seeing through corporate schemes” become a rare superpower?
She’s acing classes at a top-tier finance university. I’m just a PC repair guy who’s never touched an econ textbook. How is this corporate mind-reading skill apparently mine alone?
Nicole Hall 
Eli Cruz 
Audrey Ramos
I feel you on the price thing—it’s tough to swallow when other systems offer similar specs for less. But maybe your friend has a point; there could be hidden costs or regional pricing strategies at play that justify the markup. Still, as a gamer, it’s hard not to wish for more transparency from companies.
I feel you on the price thing—$400 feels steep even if it’s technically better than the original. But I guess when you factor in R&D, components, and global localization costs, maybe it’s not so crazy after all. Still, I’ll probably wait for sales before jumping in.