A Nintendo community
by the fans!
           
  Forum main
 + 
Thoughts on game piracy and emulation [roundtable]
 
This is sort of a heated topic in the game community and while I recall a few posts briefly delving into discussing it, I don't think its ever had its own dedicated thread.

What do you think of game piracy? As defined by downloading a ROM online to play a game instead of purchasing it.

In short, it's always bugged me. Games are entertainment, they're a luxury. You're not exactly Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. That said, I think a case can be made for exceedingly rare or unlocalized games to live on through emulation. In some cases, this can give a work more publicity than it'd normally get.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing other opinions on this matter.

URL to share (right click and copy)
07/23/16, 20:44  
 
Why not sign up for a (free) account?
   
 
DrFinkelstein said:
@J.K. Riki

Sometimes I feel like driving through a stop sign where no one else is at (and where I can clearly see that nobody is around). But I don't. Damn laws. Built into my psyche!

Me too... Me too... Or really long red lights at 2AM, ha ha.

Reminds me of Last Man on Earth and Carol's stop sign demands, lol.
07/27/16, 21:12   
Doesn't the public determine the value of something? If 8 dollars for a SNES game was too high, they wouldn't have enough sales to justify selling them at that price. But plenty of games have done very well on the VC, so...simple supply and demand, right? Clearly it's worth it to a lot of people.

I guess I'm wondering if the point being made is "this game is overpriced," vs. "I think this game is overpriced."
07/27/16, 21:23   
@TriforceBun

It's not at all unreasonable to think the VC games are overpriced for what they offer.

New indy games can sell for that much.

Full price games can be sold for that much or less. A few weeks ago the next gen remaster of the Last of Us on the PSN was on sale for $10. This is a modern game 3 years old (the remaster is even less) and it is what Nintendo is charging for a N64 game. And I have more freedom with that game than I do with VC games. I can play it on as many PS4's as I want.

The issue I take with the argument that it sells so clearly it is worth it is that it ignores what other company's offer as value. On top of that it assumes that just because it sells some amount that it is therefore successful and thus right. You could charge $50 for VC games and some people would still pay for it.

Now true, some people do find value in what Nintendo offers and will argue that the price is worth it. That being said though it isn't really possible to argue that relative to other competitors Nintendo offers more except that maybe Nintendo's games are better. Even with that though you still have to argue credibly to me that Ice Climbers is worth $5 in 2016 and that cost is totally fair for just one instance of the game. If I was a Nintendo fan who wanted easy access to my VC library across all my devices that inflates very, very quickly. On Steam I can play my games on any computer, with Sony I can play games across various platforms, iTunes, Xbox, Android, you can basically just assume that any company will do what Nintendo isn't.

EDIT: And as far as the public determining if something is worth it it should be noted that they do and Nintendo is currently doing the worst it has ever been. Policies like this aren't the only reason for that to be sure but it's not exactly unrelated either.
07/27/16, 21:53   
Edited: 07/27/16, 21:56
Unless we are talking physical copies, no NES game should be $5 in this day and age. SNES games yeah I can get behind them being $5 but NES games no way. There are very few NES games that I would be ok with spending a fiver on, and I can count them on my hand just about. So I vote with my wallet and don't buy them. Not to mention, VC prices are even worse over here in Australia.

EDIT: Just double checked and yeah, NES games are $7 over here, while SNES are $10. I'm somewhat ok with SNES games being $10, but it depends on the game I guess. I hate how Nintendo gives basically everything on the VC a flat price depending on console (except for Earthbound because we know people will buy that) instead of giving each game a price dependant on it's length, popularity, and quality. $10 for Super Metroid is a steal IMO, but $10 for Dream Course? Yeah maybe not so much...actually I bought that one so probably not the best example but sue me.
07/27/16, 23:02   
Edited: 07/27/16, 23:07
@Stephen

I think it's kind of a slippery slope to think about these things in relative terms though, because the inevitable conclusion is always that Binding of Isaac offers 200 hours of awesome gameplay for a dollar during Steam sales, so shouldn't EVERY game be less than a dollar?

Age of the game doesn't play into it for me--all that matters is quality of the game, and The Legend of Zelda is still one of the best games ever made, so five bucks is fine.

I'd love to be able to play the game on multiple devices too, but here's my logic for why it isn't that big of a deal (that might just be me rationalizing a poor decision on Nintendo's part): let's say I own Metroid on the Wii, but not the 3DS. And I really, really want to play it on 3DS! I want to play it so badly on 3DS that I'm willing to shell out five dollars for it. Doesn't my strong desire to play the game say something about how much I value it? Like, if I'm not willing to spend an amount of money equivalent to a burger on it, how badly do I actually want to play the game in the first place? And I think that's where Nintendo is coming from, they don't want their games to be looked at the way we look at the dozens of indie games we get for almost free in Humble Bundles that just sit in our Steam libraries until we get around to trying them out. Personally, I really respect that mindset.
07/28/16, 00:27   
@Secret_Tunnel

You may value these old games highly enough that you are willing to pay $5 each console cycle in perpetuity for them but I promise you that other people won't. It's just way more convenient and way less restrictive to just emulate the games on other hardware. Nintendo is competing against emulators that essentially do what they do but better, with no DRM, and for free.

Also it speaks volumes that Nintendo's valuing of their products comes at the expense of their loyal fans. I have a pretty big VC collection on my Wii, if I want access to it on the go then I have to pay the whole cost again. It sounds like to me, I am not valued as a customer but rather just someone they can try to cash out again and again with each piece of hardware.

To me Nintendo pricing their games and restricting them like they do is the equivalent of say bottled drinks at the movies. It's the same exact stuff but you have to pay a premium just because they say so regardless of whatever anyone else does in the world. And sure, you might be really thirsty and give in. Or you might just be that big a fan to where any bottle of coke to you is worth $5 but it doesn't suddenly mean that that is a fair price to be charging for what you are getting relative to the rest of the marketplace.

Nintendo won't go wrong by giving customers more value for their money at what is essentially a negligible cost to them.
07/28/16, 01:23   
Stephen said:
@Secret_Tunnel

It's just way more convenient and way less restrictive to just emulate the games on other hardware. Nintendo is competing against emulators that essentially do what they do but better, with no DRM, and for free.

There isn't any policy that would ever makes this less true. Stealing is always going to be cheaper and more convenient.
07/28/16, 01:35   
@Koovaps
Stealing is always cheaper, but not always more convenient. If I want to pirate a newly released PC game, I have to locate a torrent (that will not be out immediately, will take a few days) on a site, make sure it is virus free, check that it works, and then download it.

Whereas if I want to buy a newly released PC game I simply have to head over to Steam, search it up, pay for it, and then start the download. Way less hassle and mucking about.
07/28/16, 01:42   
@Koovaps Cheaper, yes. More convenient? Not necessarily. I remember my pirating days, searching several sites to find what I want, downloading the torrent... it turns out to be a dummy anti-pirating file, or a horribly distorted version of a song, or an album that is missing songs, or you get it downloaded to 99% and the seeder leaves you hanging, yada yada. Both Apple and Valve have gained some ground on pirates by making getting music / games pretty much as easy as the click of a button, and then you have it all nice and neat in one place. Much more convenient than pirating in many ways.

(With that said I HATE how Apple's system works in many ways, but people seem to like it.)
07/28/16, 01:45   
Edited: 07/28/16, 01:46
@Pokefreak911
@Zero

You lost me at Steam. I'd never waste my money there.
07/28/16, 01:48   
Edited: 07/28/16, 01:50
Yeah but we're talking about winning over potential pirates, not you!

Personally I've never believed that people are either going to pirate something or they aren't, like their piracy is set in stone and nothing can change that (which is what a lot of super pro-piracy people use to justify it... "it's not a lost sale if it wasn't going to be a sale anyway!") I think about it as a creator though and the best answers to "How do we battle piracy?" to me always come down to "Make it way more convenient to spend money than to pirate!" As much as people like free things, they REALLY LIKE convenience, and will often pay for it.
07/28/16, 01:58   
Edited: 07/28/16, 01:59
@Koovaps



@Zero

So true. Netflix, Spotify, iTunes, Steam were built upon this principle and now practically define how media is consumed.
07/28/16, 02:07   
@Stephen

I don't know who that is or what that means.
07/28/16, 02:19   
Edited: 07/28/16, 02:35
@Koovaps

It means at some point there's just nothing more to say. I don't know how I could engage that point of view further. Steam is the absolute gold standard when it comes to allowing content, DRM, functionality and customer care. Someone saying that they refuse to waste money it is just like kinda... Okay well I guess we're done here then.
07/28/16, 04:29   
@Stephen

There's plenty to not like about valve, a garbage company. But you're right, that's for another thread.
07/28/16, 04:32   
@Koovaps

I am curious to hear these reasons. If you'd like you can PM me them because I am genuinely curious.
07/28/16, 04:51   
I'm not a big fan of Valve as a developer (though Half-Life and Portal are cool), but I think Steam is a great storefront. I kinda own over 600 games via Steam, lel
07/28/16, 05:21   
@X-pert74
Valve is super weird as a game developer, because they don't really make too many games. They have 3 that they release updates for and maintain, but they don't make and release new games all that often.

Also I thought I was bad with my *checks Steam* 450 games, but over 600!
07/28/16, 06:21   
@Stephen

AFAIK that hasn't been true for a long time. They barely have any people working customer service, tickets can take forever to get resolved, if ever. They've got a really laissez-faire approach where if they don't have to do anything, they won't. If they can get users to do it for them, they will. Not what I'd call quality customer care.

Here's the first time I learned of the problem.

There's the little matter of their ineptitude leaking customer info.

Their approach also led to them enabling the rise of gambling sites targeting kids playing CS:GO, more recently.
07/28/16, 07:52   
Edited: 07/28/16, 07:56
Yeah, Steam isn't really known for decent customer service. Look how long it took to get a decent refund system? The amount of horror stories I hear about their customer relations are ridiculous.
07/28/16, 08:22   
  Forum main
 +