I know lemmy really has a strong sentiment against Nintendo, but for me personally, I am happy about this. I think its fair to download and emulate games when there is no legal version being offered anywhere. I would also say that being offered through subscription only doesn’t change that either. But if there is a version for sale by Nintendo, I am happy to buy that instead. I don’t think piracy is justified just because you are angry at a company. If I can purchase a copy on my modern system, that is the way I’m gonna go.
If a company shows no respect for its consumers by nickel and diming them for everything, then there is no reason to show a company respect by purchasing its products.
If they re-released their entire back catalogue at reasonable prices—not locking them behind a subscription—with a commitment to letting users transfer them to future consoles without an upgrade fee, then things would be different.
If a company shows no respect for its consumers by nickel and diming them for everything, then there is no reason to show a company respect by purchasing its products.
Sure, but there is a difference between not giving them money, and not giving them money but getting their product anyway.
“I don’t like your product or practices, so I’m not going to purchase it” is not the same as “I like your product but not your practices, so I’m going to pirate it.”
Video games are not exactly a vital good like food.
Blind consumer loyalty only incentivizes Nintendo to further raise prices and make their products less consumer friendly.
Piracy simply demonstrates a problem with supply; if Nintendo wants to solve it, the solution isn’t trying to cuts heads off of a hydra, but rather adjust prices to capture unrealized market potential.
I’m curious, what is a reasonable price to you for these games? Because as far as I’m concerned, buying both games for the price of buying one of them 20 years ago feels pretty reasonable. I agree that they drip feed the fuck out of us on actually providing a way to play these games. But releasing these games in a way that you can bring forward to additional systems, and not putting them behind a subscription is a move that should be prasied. I just think it’s a step in the right direction. I’ll take the ability to own one game on my modern system over owning zero.
Unlike physical cartridges, a digital, emulated copy of FireRed has no resale or collector’s value. Also, as the primary cost in developing such titles is the emulator, Nintendo could release additional GBA games in this manner with minimal additional effort.
Considering those factors, and the Switch having a higher install base than prior systems (over ten times Wii U unit sales), maintaining the Wii U and 3DS price points is the most reasonable means for Nintendo to monetize their back catalogue in a way that makes piracy less enticing for many people: $3 per GB, $4 per GBC, $5 per NES, $7-8 per GBA, $8 per SNES, $10 per N64, and $20 per Wii game price point.
Given that each console only requires an emulator to be developed once (something Nintendo has already done for NSO) to support hundreds of paid titles, there’s no need to increase prices when the games will sell several times more than they had any chance to on the Wii U.
Given how many games NSO includes, they could continue offering them that way for people who prefer renting their library. Consumers want meaningful options; pricing a GBA game at $20 is not that.
Even from indie devs. Many have said that if you don’t have the money to buy their game to get it and play it anyway. More eyes on it and word of mouth and whatnot.
Kinda wild to claim that a purchase of a game 20 years ago justifies pirating a game now. It’s not like no one had to do any work to get it going on Switch. They had to make GBA features connect between Switch systems. But you play how you wanna play. I just don’t like all the gatekeeping a lot of people do about people buying a copy.
I mean there are smaller people who work at the billion dollar company. You think the devs who ported this release at Nintendo are billionaires? Just because you hate a brand doesn’t mean everything that they do is exclusively handled by greedy mustache-twirling villains. The games industry is full of regular people who deserve to get paid just as much as anyone else does. I’m not going to justify fucking those people over by pretending they don’t exist while I steal from a faceless brand. A handful of greedy assholes making decisions at the top aren’t the only people who are impacted.
When I had a Wii, I bought games I had played and wanted to play on the NES when I was younger. Now I have nothing to show for it. Never again. At least with Steam, GOG, or pirating, the power is in my hands to keep those games for as long as I can. Nintendo doesn’t give me that option in any legal manner.
I know lemmy really has a strong sentiment against Nintendo, but for me personally, I am happy about this. I think its fair to download and emulate games when there is no legal version being offered anywhere. I would also say that being offered through subscription only doesn’t change that either. But if there is a version for sale by Nintendo, I am happy to buy that instead. I don’t think piracy is justified just because you are angry at a company. If I can purchase a copy on my modern system, that is the way I’m gonna go.
No need to attack me for stating an opinion. You could try discussing the topic instead of contributing nothing to the conversation.
If a company shows no respect for its consumers by nickel and diming them for everything, then there is no reason to show a company respect by purchasing its products.
If they re-released their entire back catalogue at reasonable prices—not locking them behind a subscription—with a commitment to letting users transfer them to future consoles without an upgrade fee, then things would be different.
Sure, but there is a difference between not giving them money, and not giving them money but getting their product anyway.
“I don’t like your product or practices, so I’m not going to purchase it” is not the same as “I like your product but not your practices, so I’m going to pirate it.”
Video games are not exactly a vital good like food.
Blind consumer loyalty only incentivizes Nintendo to further raise prices and make their products less consumer friendly.
Piracy simply demonstrates a problem with supply; if Nintendo wants to solve it, the solution isn’t trying to cuts heads off of a hydra, but rather adjust prices to capture unrealized market potential.
I did not say anything about blind consumer loyalty, so that comment feels strange in the context of this conversation.
I’m curious, what is a reasonable price to you for these games? Because as far as I’m concerned, buying both games for the price of buying one of them 20 years ago feels pretty reasonable. I agree that they drip feed the fuck out of us on actually providing a way to play these games. But releasing these games in a way that you can bring forward to additional systems, and not putting them behind a subscription is a move that should be prasied. I just think it’s a step in the right direction. I’ll take the ability to own one game on my modern system over owning zero.
Unlike physical cartridges, a digital, emulated copy of FireRed has no resale or collector’s value. Also, as the primary cost in developing such titles is the emulator, Nintendo could release additional GBA games in this manner with minimal additional effort.
Considering those factors, and the Switch having a higher install base than prior systems (over ten times Wii U unit sales), maintaining the Wii U and 3DS price points is the most reasonable means for Nintendo to monetize their back catalogue in a way that makes piracy less enticing for many people: $3 per GB, $4 per GBC, $5 per NES, $7-8 per GBA, $8 per SNES, $10 per N64, and $20 per Wii game price point.
Given that each console only requires an emulator to be developed once (something Nintendo has already done for NSO) to support hundreds of paid titles, there’s no need to increase prices when the games will sell several times more than they had any chance to on the Wii U.
Given how many games NSO includes, they could continue offering them that way for people who prefer renting their library. Consumers want meaningful options; pricing a GBA game at $20 is not that.
Piracy is justified because I already own those games, and they’re not backwards compatible. I’m not going to pay for the same game multiple times.
piracy is always justified
Probably not from indie developers
Even from indie devs. Many have said that if you don’t have the money to buy their game to get it and play it anyway. More eyes on it and word of mouth and whatnot.
Kinda wild to claim that a purchase of a game 20 years ago justifies pirating a game now. It’s not like no one had to do any work to get it going on Switch. They had to make GBA features connect between Switch systems. But you play how you wanna play. I just don’t like all the gatekeeping a lot of people do about people buying a copy.
Do you work for the billion dollar company? Weird fucking take you have portraying them as a victim
I mean there are smaller people who work at the billion dollar company. You think the devs who ported this release at Nintendo are billionaires? Just because you hate a brand doesn’t mean everything that they do is exclusively handled by greedy mustache-twirling villains. The games industry is full of regular people who deserve to get paid just as much as anyone else does. I’m not going to justify fucking those people over by pretending they don’t exist while I steal from a faceless brand. A handful of greedy assholes making decisions at the top aren’t the only people who are impacted.
I feel like people who were never gonna buy it no matter what the price tag was just want something to be mad at.
When I had a Wii, I bought games I had played and wanted to play on the NES when I was younger. Now I have nothing to show for it. Never again. At least with Steam, GOG, or pirating, the power is in my hands to keep those games for as long as I can. Nintendo doesn’t give me that option in any legal manner.
So you were never gonna buy it no matter what the price tag was.
You’re right, because I’ve literally done it before with them and have nothing to show for it. So which of us is the fool?
You see where they said “I bought games”? It means they bought it.
I think this is all too common of a sentiment around here. A lot of people end up turning it into gatekeeping and it just gets old.