Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

Yeah, no one's entitled to use anyone's IPs. People who don't understand copyright or think Nintendo is in the wrong when they shut down fan stuff, you have to remember that Nintendo pays a lot to keep those IPs.

I feel like most fan made games are uninspired anyway and I would rather see these people make their original games. Axiom Verge is a perfect example of what a fan made game should be imo.

@ReaderRagfish I don't think anyone is saying we should be entitled to all of a company's products for free. However, there are arguments to be had around the fact that video games are in desperate need of archiving for future generations. It is often said to be the worst form of entertainment in terms of archiving with a lot already being lost for one reason or another.

Add to that, what happens when in the future, physical consoles such as the PS1, NES or Mega Drive/Genesis become impossible to get hold of due to so many simply failing to function? Most games will never be made available to purchase due to licenses or the publisher/developer no longer being in business, or sometimes the publisher just doesn't care. So from that point of view, the ability to get hold of these games is a good reason to argue that such sites are needed.

@ReaderRagfish
as long as there is a demand for something, there will be a supply
the ONLY true way to get rid of piracy is to eradicate the gold from the face of the earth...
no programs, any type, apps, utilities, games, ect. nothing ever again, but even then
the demand will continue and those who once hacked software, will write them, no,

Pandora's Box has been opened and no matter what security measures are created, they are still just a compilation of 1's & 0's, and there will ALWAYS be someone who will reverse engineer and/or find a path around, even a fully streaming game service will eventually have the game files compiled and put out on the net

The "box" can NEVER be closed again

The only way to reduce (not end) piracy is for software and hardware companies to BE the the suppliers of the demand !!!

Sure, if there's no legal alternative that directs money toward the original distributor.

I make a point of downloading games officially distributed by them via VC if I want to play them, which is why I bought Earthbound twice on both Wii U and New 3DS, even though I've long had access to a ROM of it that works perfectly. I'm not going to not play, say, the english-translated version of Mother 3 when it's available online just because Nintendo isn't keen on making it legally available, though.

If it comes down to my only options being emulation (for free) or purchasing an expensive second-hand copy, then I'll opt for the former, as none of that money goes to Nintendo anyway.

In such a scenario, there is nothing morally dubious at all about piracy.

I didn't realize that VC4 was full price. Ah well GCU to the rescue!

@Ryu_Niiyama it's a new multiplat release from a major publisher... Of course it's full price? (Btw I'm get to the novella on ac:o eventually )

@ReaderRagfish yeah, i really don't get this new argument people have that preservation of games not for sale is some sacred right for the betterment of mankind. I mean, by that argument the Smithsonian shouldn't be buying artifacts for small fortunes from owners, they should just be seizing them by force for the public good.

@NEStalgia Eh no rush. I don’t know but perhaps because VC is still a small franchise I thought it would be cheaper. Ah well.

I'm laughing my rear end off here. Rom sites and emulation have always been legally and ethically dubious at best. Not to mention many of them are sketchy in the extreme. And the claim that there's "nothing morally dubious at all about piracy" is hilarious.

By that same logic it would be perfectly acceptable for someone to break into my apartment and steal my collection of Playstation, Playstation 2, and Gamecube games (and maybe the systems too) just because those specific games aren't legally available outside of potentially expensive 2nd hand markets.

I'll admit to having used emulators in the past to play a few NES and SNES games. And even one or two N64 games as well. And yet I'd much rather either use the original hardware and physical copies of the games or buy a re-release of the games in question. And that's entirely because I've always realized that rom sites were probably illegal, were often sketchy at best (thus risked your computer getting infected), and are definitely morally wrong to use.

I'll be honest here, I thought sites like EmuNation and Cool Roms would be shut down 18 years ago, at the very least. The fact that they weren't shut down by Nintendo and other companies years ago is rather surprising.

@Ryu_Niiyama i paid 60 for vc1 on ps4. 40, i think a was standard price for psp games when i got 2 so that was cheaper... But 4 is ps4 and switch, so yeah.

We won't talk about the jpn vc3 import costs....

@FaeKnight Well, there's a difference, nobody is breaking into your, or anyone else's, house, and nothing is 'stolen' (as in 'removed from the owner').

The point @Ralizah is trying to make is that buying a second hand copy or downloading a ROM doesn't support Nintendo in any way. So if the second hand market is acceptable, why aren't ROMs (for older games)? Neither option is helping Nintendo, but one avoids paying bloated overpriced cartridges for a 30-year old system.

Now, this would be different if they offered their entire backlog of older games on the eShop for example, then you could make the argument that there is a legal option to play said game.

The games I emulate are also games I already own. So I personally don't see the issue. Reasons are for not being tied to old archaic hardware; especially portable hardware without back lighting. Getting the option for multiple saves, etc.

The second hand market does support Nintendo.

@gcunit How? Hunting down a copy of Earthbound on eBay, or just downloading a ROM are equally ''useless'' for Nintendo; they earn nothing from either option.

@Octane ROMs hurt Nintendo in more substantial way. I don't think the issue is quantifying financial benefit. There is none; maybe a high resale value makes something more desirable to some, no idea lol.

@Octane
But i depend on Second handed games on Ebay for my collections if i cannot find them on Playasia. As long Original copies, i feel relieved.

I see the points on both sides. This also gets back to the whole argument whether or not games lose value/even become free once they are very old.

If you look at games as art, to believe that they lose value at all would be hypocritical, in my opinion. Do old books, music, movies, paintings, lose their value? But a big argument against that is that many of those forms can be had for free once they reach a certain age. Very old books are completely free, same for music and some movies. So, maybe art does lose monetary value?

I think with buying a physical copy secondhand versus downloading a ROM you're getting into an existential thing. Sure, neither method of playing the game gives a cent to the dev, but only one method embodies the game as it was actually created and produced. A ROM completely strips the game of its production and disperses it limitless times, whereas hunting down a copy of it, though it doesn't benefit the dev, is still adhering to/using the "intended" piece of art from the artist.

The legality or illegality of it isn't what I'm concerned about. People do all sorts of stuff in their daily lives that's technically illegal, but nobody really cares too much about. And, yes, legally, Nintendo absolutely has the right to shut those sites down.

I'm concerned about the moral and financial implications of piracy, and so far, I've yet to see anyone offer an argument beyond "piracy is bad because it's bad." Which strikes me more as someone being socially conditioned to always consider it a bad thing in all scenarios.

No. If I break into your apartment and steal your stuff, I'm depriving you of your things, which is harmful to you, and thus morally troublesome. Piracy isn't comparable at all. Nobody is having their stuff taken from them.

Risking the safety of your computer by visiting unsafe sites is a practical concern, not a moral one.

And you haven't made an argument for why it's morally wrong beyond (wrongfully) comparing it to ordinary theft. "It's wrong because it's illegal and might give your computer a virus if you visit sites like that" isn't really a compelling moral argument.

When buying/owning a Wii U is the best option for something, you know there's a big problem

So use an adblocker, and you're good to go.

I'm open to the idea that piracy is ultimately immoral, but, as I said, the only viable argument I've heard is "it's illegal." Which doesn't mean much. Laws can and do change with the times.

Ultimately, my opinion is that pirating and ROMs and all that can be traced back to the digital/internet advent. Just like it's done to pretty much all media, the internet has diluted the importance/rarity of art.

Before the internet, if you wanted to see a famous painting or sculpture or something, you had either had to GO to it in the actual world or find pictures of it in a book or perhaps a family member/friend who took pictures of it. Basically, it was MUCH harder to experience the art. You can spread that out to movies, music, books - all art forms that just 20-30 years ago had to be experienced first-hand.

But now with the internet and social media, I think creations have lost their value. For video games, we now have ROMs. For books we have illegal PDFs. For music we had Napster, Limewire, and still have illegal mp3 sites. For movies, well, yep, same thing - pirating is insane. And you no longer need to take an 8-hour car ride to visit the Smithsonian to see that one dinosaur skeleton or actually go to Broadway to see Hamilton. You can just (illegally) watch Hamilton online, for free, or (not illegally) look up pictures and interactive sites for that dinosaur skeleton to your heart's content.

Art and general creation has lost a lot of its value in most of our minds, and that's why this discussion is even a thing. We've become so numb to constant advancement and the ability to immerse ourselves in art and culture through internet/social media that it all has become one big, meaningless blur unless it's on the absolute cutting edge.

Let me preface this by saying I love emulating games. But I'll get back to this.

By the letter of the law, emulation IS piracy and it IS wrong. That's indisputable. That's true for me, you, and everyone else.

By the spirit of the law, it may be piracy and may be wrong, depending on the individual situation and context.

Whether or not Nintendo loses a sale, if that person would have otherwise bought secondhand, then someone is losing a sale. Just because it's not Nintendo specifically doesn't mean it's OK. In fact it's probably going to hurt your average middle-class Joe far more than a multibillion-dollar corporation.

The problem with judging by context with regard to the spirit of the law is that nobody can prove your motives except you. Only you know if you would have otherwise bought that game, and a lot of people actually deceive themselves into thinking they wouldn't have, even though they would. They convince themselves they would "never have bought that" otherwise, when in fact they would have done so, even if begrudgingly.

And because the courts are not mind readers and cannot magically discern your motives or intentions, they have to apply the law by the letter. If you choose to break the letter of the law that is your choice.

I choose to emulate, and I'm OK with it because I know I'm emulating games I already own, and in some cases have purchased three or four or five or more times already. Or I'm emulating games that never got localized. Or games that simply are not sold on any modern platform that can play in HD. And I would not purchase them on their original platforms because I have no interest in playing them that way, nor do I have interest in hooking up legacy consoles.

I believe video games can be art, but I also believe that art belongs to the artist who created it. And as much as we don't like it, it is their decision whether that game is preserved or not. It's their creation. If they decide they don't want anyone else playing that game for the rest of eternity, that unfortunately is their right to decide. With that being said, if the game isn't being sold then I know I wouldn't have bought it, from Nintendo or a secondhand seller, and thus I take no issue and emulating that game because I am not cheating a sale out of Nintendo or a secondhand seller. And if Nintendo or whatever 3rd party releases the game, I'll buy it the day it releases. Always.

But I always try to stay open minded. If someone were to make a good enough argument that I am in some way harming another, I might reconsider my stance. But I don't think anyone will.