A Nintendo community
for the fans, by the fans!
 Go to forum index
Wii U software cannot be stored on SD Card, tied to Wii U System and not user accounts.
News reported by 
Editor
November 11, 2012, 01:22:16
 
Unfortunately it seems that Nintendo gamers will once again have to make do with a few restrictions with the purchase of Nintendo's Wii U system.

This is a translation from Nintendo's Japanese site.

Downloaded software can only be played on the Wii U it was originally bought from. Meaning if you download a game to an external HDD and try to use that HDD on another Wii U, it won't work. Correction: downloaded software is saved to the internal memory or what's in the USB slot. Downloaded software can't be saved to the SD card.

360 or PS3 owners have long been able to download software tied to their accounts and run it on friends systems, Sony takes this one step further and allows the software to be installed on 2 systems without the paying user being logged in, meaning you can share software with a friend if you so desire. Nintendo however are opting to only allow software to be installed on the system it is purchased on, not really a suprise but its still the most restrictive scenario of the current home consoles.

On top of this it seems that getting a nice large SD card with your system will be pointless as software purchased can only be stored on USB devices or the systems local storage solution. Best not to rely on those SDHC cards just yet.

Information originally discovered by NeoGAF user Hobby.

URL to share this content (right click and copy link)
Posted: 11/11/12, 01:22:16  - Edited by 
 on: 11/11/12, 01:42:18    
 
Why not sign up for a (free) account and create your own content?
 
Sorry, I don't base my opinion on such matters on anecdotal evidence. People say "piracy is bad," too. And, sure, to an extent it is. But on the same note it has a very real boost to sales and just general awareness on certain titles. There is no easy answer because it all comes down to the game in question, and the circumstances around it.

And don't think that those circumstances are super rare or anything, "I bought a game because it was awesome after I played it" is just as common as "I didn't buy a game because I got another version for free."

The numbers are completely non-quantifiable. It is literally impossible to tell whether money is being made or lost, because it is impossible to differentiate circumstance.

Let me phrase this another way;

If you paid for a single game, and got two copies every time, no matter the game, do you think game sales would go up or down? I think they'd go up. You'd always have a copy for a friend, and you could buy a game and give a copy to a friend, and be broke, then your friend could buy a copy of another game and give you the extra. More games being played, a bigger variety of games being played, and more interest in the system in question in general. That's what I imagine would happen.

Of course, you could also look at is as "Oh no, I'm only gonna get half the sales!"

Impossible to tell for sure either way, but I certainly don't think it's as simple as "It's good or bad."


Posted by 
 on: 11/11/12, 16:17:03
@Xbob42 the fact that me and four other people shared the same dlc on 7 different game occasions, so from just my personal experience Sony lost about $400 between me and my friends sharing dlc, I'm sure I'm not the only one who did this as well.

And on the argument of "good or bad" it doesn't matter, developers will see it as, solution A gives me more money but possibly less people playing my game. Solution B gives more people the option to play a game but less money to developers. Nintendo went to solution A and that is the right choice if developers want to stay in business.

It was an oversight of Sony that me and three other friends can be playing all the same borderlands and call of duty dlc at the same time while only one of us paid for it. That probably angered developers.


Posted by 
 on: 11/11/12, 16:19:33  - Edited by 
 on: 11/11/12, 16:25:03
@Scrawnton Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. You and your friends circle-jerked each other for a while, that's no different than loaning games to a buddy.


Posted by 
 on: 11/11/12, 16:21:08
@Xbob42 the difference between what Sony lets people do and loaning is that the original buyer and up to four other people could play the same game at once. That is money being wasted.


Posted by 
 on: 11/11/12, 16:23:28
Theoretical money being theoretically wasted. Again, non-quantifiable as a whole. As you do not live in an alternate universe where Sony's download service was not the same, you don't even know whether or not your friends would buy it otherwise.


Posted by 
 on: 11/11/12, 16:26:44
@Xbob42 and it doesn't matter if its anecdotal evidence, it's evidence. Assume what I did was done by %10 of ps3 owners, I could've and would've paid up to $400 on extra dlc this gen that I didn't have to, if 1/10 of the user base did this then hell, that's millions of dollars being wasted, in this day where used gaming is killing off developers, that is not acceptable and I bet, no I GUARANTEE DRM will be tighter on next gen systems, I will eat my words if they aren't.


Posted by 
 on: 11/11/12, 16:28:19
Xbob you are being ridiculously hard headed about this, you refuse to acknowledge that money was lost this gen do to digital game sharing, no point in arguing with you , enjoy being pissed at Nintendo, goodbye.


Posted by 
 on: 11/11/12, 16:29:15  - Edited by 
 on: 11/11/12, 16:29:50
@Scrawnton

Why do you think Sony (and other companies like Netflix) allow their stuff on multiple devices if it's so obvious that they lost money on it? As Xbob says, it's not nearly as simple as counting all the people who share games, even if you could. These businesses certainly know a lot more about their profits and losses than you or I and they continue to operate this way. They must think big picture it makes them money, because that's the only thing that matters to them.


Posted by 
 on: 11/11/12, 16:45:57
@Jargon well, for one, Sony already changed there policy with ps vita, that system has to be activated as the account holder before downloading anything and those games can only exist on that system.


Posted by 
 on: 11/11/12, 16:49:10
Jargon said:
These businesses certainly know a lot more about their profits and losses than you or I and they continue to operate this way. They must think big picture it makes them money, because that's the only thing that matters to them.

Uh huh.


Posted by 
 on: 11/11/12, 17:47:03
I'm sort of confused what your actual argument is Xbob. It appears to be that there is a clear right way and a wrong way to do things and you think Nintendo is doing them wrong, but on the other hand when Scrawnton states that Sony did something wrong, you want him to provide clear-cut evidence, while simultaneously stating that such evidence doesn't exist either way, and sort of ignoring that this is true for your view on Nintendo as well? Like, at some point we either have to accept some kind of logic / sense without hardcore proof, or not, right? You can't base your arguments off of what... common sense I guess? then get in people's faces for not having actual numbers to back up their viewpoints.

The weird thing is I do think Nintendo is approaching this wrong. But we certainly can't sit here and prove that it will lose Nintendo money, so it is a weird thing to require that from other people for other viewpoints. I also think Sony made a huge mistake in how they managed their downloads and it is no surprise to me that they are stepping back from it with the Vita, and if you were hanging out on Sony forums, you would understand why I think this way. It became second nature for a lot of diehard gamers who would otherwise have bought a lot of these games to just hang out on forums and "trade" purchases. It was so prevalent that it almost made me start wondering if I was an idiot to keep buying all of these games as Sony handed me a legal way to only have to buy a fraction of the games I wanted to play... so why not exploit it and save money? But I guess I never really made many "friends" on the Sony forums so I never bothered.

This is just the Sony case, I'm sure Steam manages this stuff differently.


Posted by 
 on: 11/11/12, 20:35:41
@Renjaku

Bwahahaha. Nice.


Posted by 
 on: 11/11/12, 21:13:29
lol @ people who think piracy might actually be "helping" the industry by "spreading awareness". Fucking please.

Piracy helps out Nintendo, Sony, MS, and the movie industry? It must be why they have FBI involvement, numerous laws, and endless counter measures against all this shit. And not because they did any research or realize how much money their industry is losing, but because they merely had a hunch they were losing money, even though according to some people advocating this "ohmagah, they make enuff money as it is, they're billionares, let me click and get games and movies for free" bullshit, they could be helping the industry grow. lol.

And how many douchebags who live off of free downloads do you really think will go out and buy these movies after? You can "anecdotal evidence" me all you want, but I have MANY many friends who LIVE off of piracy. I can think of, like, 20 off the top of my head, (and that doesn't count friends of friends) who download and stream movies and games (and music!) ALL. THE. TIME. Do you know how much money only ONE of these people is not spending? And the majority of them are "enthusiasts", so they do it a FUCKton.

As for anyone else on Earth who does this shit: How many people are "good" enough to go and buy their stolen merchandise after downloading it? And why would they? What incentive is there? How much evidence do you have that many people treat piracy as "demoing"?


Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 00:22:31
carlosrox said:
And not because they did any research or realize how much money their industry is losing, but because they merely had a hunch they were losing money

Riiight. How exactly do you prove you lost money that never got spent to begin with? Do you just assume it did worse because it had pirates? Piracy has always existed if that's the case. So shouldn't everything be doing terribly? No amount of analytics can help because it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE.

World of Goo was pirated to an insane amount and was still crazy profitable. Certainly everybody would've paid for it otherwise, right? Because that's how it works, right? If you get rid of piracy, sales SKYROCKET! Wait, no, no, that's not how it works. DRM has prevented piracy for as much as months at a time and according to companies like CDProjekt Red it actually hurt more than it helped because sales were not any higher than before and now they had to deal with loads of customer support for fucked up DRM and pissed off customers.

Again, you use anecdotal evidence as the entire backbone of your argument, which makes the whole thing brittle as fuck. You come off as overemotional, using what you think of as common sense as some sort of "Well, DUH!" evidence. No. That's not how it fucking works. If it was that simple, there would be no arguments from anyone about anything because it would be easy as fuck to prove one way or another.

Zero said:
I'm sort of confused what your actual argument is Xbob. It appears to be that there is a clear right way and a wrong way to do things and you think Nintendo is doing them wrong, but on the other hand when Scrawnton states that Sony did something wrong, you want him to provide clear-cut evidence, while simultaneously stating that such evidence doesn't exist either way, and sort of ignoring that this is true for your view on Nintendo as well?.

There absolutely is a clear right way and wrong way for some things, and not so much for others.

Providing less options --options that are standard everywhere else-- is the wrong way.

Letting friends share their games is an intangible way to do something because the true effect of something like that is impossible to gauge.

And then you have carlos who doesn't think that word of mouth spreads via pirates, who are the biggest loudmouths of whether a game is bad or not in the world. There is absolutely no such thing as too much press, no matter its source. Considering that the vast majority of pirating is from countries where games are an insanely expensive luxury or not available at all with any reliability, I highly doubt it's crippling the market to any realistic point. (See, this is an actual fact, backed up by evidence, analytics absolutely DO show most pirating comes from very poor countries where games can cost literally a month of rent.)


Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 01:44:43
@Xbob42
And what's your evidence? Me and Scrawnton have something, you have shit. And yes, I guess 3 entire industries are trying to combat piracy just for fun. Not like they've ever lost any money or anything.

I'm emotional? What? What are you even talking about? Don't put words or feelings in my mouth. I'm not the one who rips into everyone's posts with hyperbole making himself look like a dick, meltdowns any time someone disagrees with him, and then wonders "why does everyone have a problem with the way I post?".

Prove to me how word of mouth spreads via piracy. If according to you, majority of pirates are in Istanbul, how is it affecting us? Ever visit a Zimbabwe gaming forum and hear whether or not COD:BO2 sucks or rocks?

And cuz games are too expensive in third world countries it means they can steal it? This whole argument of "they wouldn't buy it anyways" is fucking stupid. So what? They're still getting something for free. I can't afford a Ferrari, is it okay if I steal them? Come the fuck on.


Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 02:11:58  - Edited by 
 on: 11/12/12, 02:13:42
@Xbob42 Yeah but isn't the question in this case as to whether linking games to accounts versus systems could lead to more abuse by people who share games?

Keep in mind, again, I'm agreeing with you in general. But it's still a question, and I'm sure it is on Nintendo's mind, which is almost definitely why they are going the direction they are going. I don't think it is as simple as simply "less options", and I think Sony did make a mistake and realized their mistake and is rectifying it.

Most pirating comes from countries who don't crack down very hard on pirating, which just happen to be a lot of poor countries, so I'm not sure that your conclusion is 100% sound. Especially since China, who has one of the world's largest economies, is basically dead to console gaming... pirating is the law of the land there and you can walk into markets and openly buy pirated console games so none of the console manufacturers even want to bother trying to sell anything legitimately. China should be a huge market for console gaming, and it's not and probably never will be, unless the government changes their view on pirating. Now, the Chinese game market is pretty huge and growing, but this is mostly through online subscription gaming, I believe, which can't really be pirated as far as I know.

I think it is very tough to argue that the spread of pirating helps the gaming market. Now, what it can help with is pushing the game market towards more consumer-friendly options, which Nintendo admittedly struggles with a lot.


Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 02:12:13  - Edited by 
 on: 11/12/12, 02:15:47
@carlosrox
I pirated Minecraft. I later bought it because I enjoyed it. The same thing happened with Super Meat Boy for me.


Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 02:15:42
@Pokefreak911
According to Xbob that is mere anecdotal evidence. I have a friend who pirates a huge chunk of his games and uses the lame "I wouldn't buy it anyways" argument, which is a copout and means he can play anything he wants for free and demo as he pleases. Every now and then he does what you do, but that doesn't mean its good for the games he didn't buy.

You guys are aware there huge chunks of people that exclusively pirate games, and some who are like my friend and (apparently) you who may try a game and buy some? The ones that aren't bought are fucked, potential sale lost there, and the dipshits who pirate exclusively will download god knows how much music, movies, games, etc, and NEVER pay a cent. There's no denying these people exist. There's no denying there's a potential sale lost.


Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 02:17:25  - Edited by 
 on: 11/12/12, 02:19:29
Certainly some pirating is stuff people wouldn't have bought anyway, and certainly some of it is stuff people would have bought. We have to assume that a portion of sales are lost through pirating, and if pirating is rampant (it is), that those lost sales may / probably are significant. Whether word-of-mouth or whatever can make up those sales is a whole other argument, but let's not pretend sales are not lost.


Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 02:22:33
You guys are again appealing to both emotion and fallacious arguments.

You say that companies spend millions to stop piracy, so clearly piracy must be making them lose lots of money.

On that same note, CDProjekt RED completely removed any and all DRM from their products because quote "It did not help. At all." because simply preventing piracy is NOT a guaranteed sales spike.

Likewise, the developer of Hotline Miami provided tech support to pirates. His sales then increased.

There are factors, and we can tell that the act of piracy is a bad thing, obviously, but the net result of piracy is not necessarily a bad thing because word of mouth spreads by people who love or hate something, it doesn't matter whether they paid for it or not. If you think that number is insignificant then you are flat out wrong. How wrong? I cannot say any more than I can say how many sales are lost to piracy. But I know word of mouth is the biggest proven seller of any product.

What I'm trying to say is not that "Piracy is good" or anything like that, I'm saying it's all intangibles. Some companies spend millions to prevent it and report no gains. Some stop it for a few days and report that they appeared to have a boost to sales. Some REMOVE It and claim to have a boost to sales. The only thing that seems to be consistent is that if you don't treat your customers like thieves, they tend to buy your games more often.

It can go either way. If everyone pirates your $500 million game with a $90 million marketing budget and find out it sucks, they're gonna fucking lambast it, which may decrease sales. If you're some little unknown indie game, they could boost you to greatness by constant praise (Psst: Pirates don't always admit that they're pirates. They're just like you or me on forums, sneaky people with secret identities. carlos once pirated an mp3 for the Village People, for example.) and such. And of course there's a huge middle ground. I am not claiming to have proof one way or the other, just occasional claims from companies. All of course just as intangible, but let's not pretend that there's only companies going "PIRACY IS THE WORST EVER"


Posted by 
 on: 11/12/12, 03:02:09  - Edited by 
 on: 11/12/12, 03:05:19
Browse    1  2  3  4