Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@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.

That doesn't matter, though. Nobody is entitled to buy my used stuff, y'know? If the creator is making their game legally available, that's one thing, but there's no moral imperative for me to buy a second-hand copy of an out-of-print game from Joe Nobody.

And I'd argue that buying games second-hand is at least as "wrong" as piracy when it comes to depriving the content creators of compensation for their product when it comes to games that can be bought new. I don't know how it is now, but people in the industry used to point out, quite frequently, that used game sales were way more a problem than piracy when it came to consoles.

some people consider "Fan Games" piracy too, but I don't, it is openly admited as a game of a specific maker and they are always free & don't take away from revenue, so as i see it, they don't fall under the "grey area"

I tend to look at games on a more entertainment tip. Calling them art is a tad pretentious lol. Sure they have some artistry, craft and artwork, but a video game, played in the context of a video game is not bloody art people!

And basically, while there are folk willing to be entertained, e.g someone willing to play through Zelda on NES, then Nintendo do right to sell that entertainment and protect their livelihood.

@GrailUK I feel like hat seems a bit narrow-minded since you could make that same argument for movies, music, and books. Just as all those fields have their stuff that is purely for enjoyment, they also have things that can make people step back and get touched. I don't see why video games can't also fit under those circumstances.

The problem, imo, is that the AAA industry for the most part thinks that it's best to try emulating movies instead of trying to truly intertwine storytelling to video games. Games like Dark Souls, Undertale, or even to a small extent Ocarina of Time (even if it's not the deepest story ever nor completely intertwined, being a Zelda game) are those types of games that embody video game storytelling and try to take it places books or movies can't.

Games are defined by interactivity and the experience you get, not just enjoyment. Even though I actually err more on games that are fun above all else like Nintendo, indies, and select other guys like Platinum Games, there is a lot of potential for video game art if we continue to build on the strengths of games as a medium instead of just copying what books and movies do.

As for my thoughts on video game preservation, for the most part people only care about the big games. Barely anyone ever wants the smaller, niche titles like The Adventures of Cookie & Cream on PS2 to be made preserved for future generations. There are people that genuinely want all that, but for the most part the arguments for preservation are really only for the classics, not any B-grade quality games.

@GrailUK
define "Art"
(NOT Google or Webster....YOUR definition)

@jhewitt3476 I'm sure it's like religion and personal but for me art tends to challenge, hmm not necessarily challenge, but question or experiment with concepts abstract or more physical that we as human beings experience and experiencing them in a different way can make you reflect on things. More often than not it leaves me thinking 'What the heck was that!?' Lol. (Eek, my brain hurts now!)

Why do I consider emulation morally wrong? At it's core, it's because emulation is piracy, which is a form of theft. When you buy physical media it is your legal right to give it away or sell it to someone else. What you don't have the legal right to do is duplicate it and give or sell that duplicate to someone else. Doing so is not only legally wrong, but I feel it's morally wrong too.

Then there's the fact that emulation makers will blatantly do their best to create an emulator for not only defunct systems like the NES but for current gen consoles. In just 30 seconds of looking I found 3 different PS4 emulators and Xbox 360 emulators (none for XB1... yet) This means that yes, emulation does directly take away hardware and software sales that could have gone to the console manufacturer and game developers. This isn't just "letting people play games for old consoles that are no longer manufactured", it's "letting people pirate games for any console".

And as someone else pointed out, Emulator creators and rom sites aren't non-profit. They are for-profit. Do you know what they're using the money they make for? No, you don't. For all you know, the money raised by them could be funding terrorists. And even if they aren't doing that, how do you know the money isn't used to fund something you'd find objectionable?

Emulation is just as morally wrong as pirating PC games or movies. And it's just as inherently risky to do as well.

@GrailUK
You don't consider them art? Do you consider movies art?

I consider anything that has personal expression behind it to be art. My wife is a dentist and she says there's art to dentistry; she can see the personal touches and differences between dentists and the fillings, crowns, root canals, etc. they do.

@rallydefault I've opened up a right can of worms haven't I lol. Ok, I can appreciate how she can see the art in something. After all, art is the practice of creating something. But would she consider the filing in someone's mouth a piece of art? See, in it's context...it's not. It's a bloomin' filling!

@subpopz My hero (I'm the least high brow person I know lol)

It's turned off at the moment. I was playing Kingdom Hearts 1 last night/this morning.