Guitar@lemmy.world 2 months ago
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 did not say anything about blind consumer loyalty, so that comment feels strange in the context of this conversation.
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.
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 2 months ago
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.
peacefulpixel@lemmy.world 2 months ago
piracy is always justified
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Probably not from indie developers
athatet@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
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.
Guitar@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Do you work for the billion dollar company? Weird fucking take you have portraying them as a victim
Guitar@lemmy.world 2 months ago
kilgore_trout@feddit.it 2 months ago
You were right in your first comment, but this is plainly false. Not pirating, mind, but making copies of what you already own is legal, at least in US and most of Europe.
Guitar@lemmy.world 2 months ago