ThomastheTankEngine

@michellelynn0976 trying to axe game ownership and going the Adobe route with classic games is the wrong thing to do.

Nintendo fans would rather cheer on the company whose trying to axe game ownership then ever contemplate if Nintendo is the bad guy. They are.

@mikegamer they don't care about the legality of it in the slightest.

They just care because it hurts Nintendo's bottom line. The fanbase is a cult.

Nintendo can never do any wrong.

@nhSnork no I guess not, but why even bother defending Nintendo? As we can see, they only ever respond with extreme contempt.

@MichaelP then it fits someone like you to a T

@Fulkaffe so true.

Nintendo- locks an increasing amount of legacy systems and games behind a paywall, ala Adobe.

Xbox- only have to buy the game once, current console has both physical and digital backwards compatibility back to the OG Xbox. No game is locked behind a subscription. GamePass is an option.

@nhSnork why should I praise a company that spits in the face of the consumer at every turn and is on a warpath against game ownership?

@jowe_gw I don't condone or participate in piracy of current gen games.

However, when the company on the receiving end is trying to get rid of game ownership, forgive me for not being sympathetic.

Why should I care about Nintendo's bottom in the slightest?

@Dorry77 the official definition of piracy is "the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work".

Where's the word stealing there?

Or do you think the physical copy of a game vanishes into thin air when someone downloads a rom?

@jowe_gw yes. Just not the PS3 games because those are stream only.

Other consoles, PS1, PS2, PSP, you can buy their classic games.

@jowe_gw PS Plus, GamePass, NSO. Which of these three services forces rentals and doesn't let you buy games?

Nintendo's "service".

@iLikeUrAttitude Why even bother stating that what Nintendo's doing is legal? Is anyone arguing it's not?

Are these fans even able to understand that legality and morality are separate?

@MichaelP Nintendo is not and will not be immune to criticism no matter how much you throw a tantrum.

@westman98 why? I can just buy games from Sony and Microsoft for keeps. Nintendo loses out on easy money. I keep the money.

Nintendo continues to make bad decisions you defend. If anything Nintendo loses.

@HeeHo that would make sense if I ever pirated a Switch game, which I haven't. Classic Nintendo fan, logic isn't your strong suit, but making faulty assumptions is.

What about games they aren't selling? Where the profits don't go to Nintendo at all?

What's your excuse there? "WhY DoN't YoU pAy ScAlPeR's PrIcEs FoR uSeD gAmEs AnD fAuLtY hArDwArE"?

@GADG3Tx87 why are Nintendo fans so bad with their analogies? Piracy isn't stealing. It's piracy. Or do you really think a copy of Pokemon XD that they aren't selling magically disappears into thin air when someone downloads the rom? If you're going to accuse people of doing something bad, at least be right about it.

Your assumption is based on the fact that it's a new game that's being pirated, and that when that game is pirated, the physical copy vanishes. Do you really think that's what happens lol?

I hope you also know developers don't get paid based off of sales...so you buying the game supports a company and the corporate parasites at the top who are trying to eliminate game ownership.

You made a comment about wealth. I literally said, Sony and Microsoft are richer and it's not justified to pirate their products. It's justified based on a companies lack of principles and malice.

Why are you defending a company that's on an all out war against game ownership and is doing everything they can to get rid of it? Should people not call them out on it?

@BloodNinja it really does. I love a lot of Nintendo's games, but that's just it. Nintendo games. Not the corporation. I respect the game developers but it feels a lot of those defending this make assumptions that the people making these dumb decisions have this weird assumption about how it works.

Like do they think Sakamoto made this decision or something? Do they think Aonuma wanted Ocarina of Time to be locked behind a $50 yearly paywall? Some of the arguments are so bad I have to wonder if they place the game developers in charge of these decisions.

No, most of the people making these decisions are corporate parasites who have never created a game or piece of software. They just exist as leeches to siphon as much money from a gullible fanbase as possible. Furukawa wouldn't piss on any of these Nintendrones if they were on fire.

@Vix exactly cult is the best word to describe this fanbase! The level of slavish fawning goes far beyond fanboying, it's straight up a cult!

Ever seen the YouTube video "Sacrifices to the Church of Nintendo"? Lots of great information.

@Waka_the_Prophet this exactly. Nintendo is nothing more than a tyrant bullying others.

They have their underlings in the thread stating "tHaT''s HoW tHe LaW wOrKs!" as if morality and legality aren't two separate entities.

And we all know if Nintendo were to break the law and do illegal things those same law and order simps would handwave that away because Nintendo.

@BloodNinja yay I'm ninja approved!

Thanks man!

@BloodNinja did you get a Steam Deck to replace it?

Also, I'm with you. Nintendo are so arrogant and abusive towards the customer that I'm hoping their next console will flop so much it'll make the Wii U look like a smash hit.

@GADG3Tx87 piracy is justified against a company trying to axe game ownership. It's not about the funds, it's about the intentions.

Sony and Microsoft are a lot richer than Nintendo and piracy isn't justified against them. They aren't trying to get rid of game ownership and make good faith efforts to sell their legacy games where they can for a fair price.

@westman98 it's Nintendo's next console

@westman98 Have I got a great deal for you!

For only $999.99, you can be the proud owner of the Super Hyper Incredible Turbo Expansion pass! This product will let you play games from the NES-Switch!*

*Product only available in five year installments. Product is required to play NES-Switch games. Nintendo is not responsible for the probable glitches, save data loss, or potential brick regarding your system. Console sold separately. Batteries not included.

@Wexter that’s totally fair to me the best kind of consoles are ones that have cool and unique features and also ones where you can built a great library to your hearts desire!

The consoles I like most are PS1, PS2, Dreamcast, GameCube, OG Xbox, GBA, PS3, Wii, PS5, and Xbox Series X/S because they fit that.

@RasandeRose Like I said, the Switch shoplifts indies from PC and third party games from PlayStation and Xbox to pad out its library. It doesn’t really matter when its the most expensive version and will run and look the worst due to compromises. Why not put that effort into exclusive third party games?

Nintendo just doesn’t seem to care about bolstering the console with exclusives and just rests on the portability title.

On the topic of DRM and GT7, I didn’t buy it. Guess what? Sony has lots of great first party single player games, their bread and butter, that don’t have this problem, with lots of new games coming too that likely won’t stumble like Gran Turismo 7.

On top of that there’s reason to buy third party games on PlayStation since they’re cheaper and run better on the platform.

Plus, let’s remember another area Nintendo dropped the ball. PlayStation exclusives will get steep price drops after a year or so. Switch games from launch are still $60. This is worse than both PlayStation and Xbox deals, but also Nintendo’s own offerings.

Remember Nintendo Selects? Don’t give me that bs that the Switch’s popularity is why we don’t have it. The Wii was popular and had Nintendo Selects as well. Difference back then was who was leading Nintendo. It’s made all the difference with how Nintendo has fallen so far.

@RasandeRose yeah, I dislike Nintendo as a business. What’s wrong with that? I already said that I support them as a developer.

I’ve criticized both Sony and Microsoft for having their consoles lack backwards compatibility as well. It’s why I’m not too fond of either PS4 or 360.

I do care about new games, but I want my console to be the complete package. If it can play old and new games both that’s ideal. If anything it’s you yourself who said you only cared for new games and that “20 year old games” are irrelevant. Gaming history will be wiped away because of people like you.

Do you not understand the appeal of say, on Wii, going from Chrono Trigger to Smash 64 to Pokémon XD, to Super Mario Galaxy?

You can’t do that at all on Switch, regardless of whether you pay Nintendo continually.

And on Xbox, you can hop from OG Xbox titles like Star Wars: KOTOR to XBLA games like Banjo Kazooie back to new titles like Forza.

The option to build a gaming library to your hearts desire is a console’s greatest strength. The PS1, PS2, GameCube, GBA, Wii, PS5, and Xbox Series X/S do this phenominally.
Something the Switch is lacking, unless you have countless $60 checks lying around.

Most of my points also boil down to other stuff as well. I mentioned hardware durability which the Switch does worse than the Wii.

Why does third party support on Nintendo consoles even matter when the games will exist on other platforms in a better state at a lower cost? Multiplatform games on Nintendo consoles are almost always worse.

Typically the best strategy is to have a third party game exclusive like Mischief Makers on N64 or have exclusive content like Link in Soul Calibur II on the GameCube. Or like the Wii just go all out and make whatever games you want, have fun with the hardware, Sin and Punishment: Star Successor, Red Steel 2, Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition, Madworld, The Last Story, Pandora’s Tower, etc. also Wiiware titles!

What’s the Switch equivalent? Octopath Traveller? That’s about it. When it comes to exclusive experiences (available for purchase), the Wii trounces the Switch. You got a Wii for the plethora of exclusive content and gaming methods the PS360 didn’t have.

@Ayasplat nice troll lol

@Ayasplat yeah, well respected as a developer, not corporation. There is a difference.

I don’t think atrocious support for legacy content, limited time games, and flimsy hardware is exactly a golden era.

The true golden era of Nintendo, and the only good one, was when Mr. Iwata was the CEO of Nintendo.

@RasandeRose I assure you when it comes to Nintendo as a business I am definitely anti-Nintendo as any discerning customer should be.

When it comes to game development, I am pro-Nintendo. I won’t hesitate to tell anyone that as a game developer, Nintendo since the mid eighties to the present day is responsible for a large chunk of the best video games ever made. This is where the divide should be though. I support Nintendo as a game developer and not a corporation.

Do you think anyone whose a part of making some of the best games of all time has any say in Nintendo’s bad decisions? Do you think Sakamoto asks for Super Metroid to not be available for purchase, or that Aonuma asks for Ocarina of Time on Switch to run worse than original hardware, and to be behind a $50 yearly paywall?

I hope you don’t, and can separate these two parts of Nintendo. As it stands you ask why I’m frustrated with Nintendo. Why shouldn’t I be?

They got all this stuff right with the Wii. The Wii had killer exclusives, backwards compatibility, amazing respect for legacy content (both first and third party) with games purchaseable via Virtual Console, and lots of hidden gems and great third party titles exclusively made for the system or enhanced due to the Wii’s control scheme.

The Switch on that list only has the killer exclusives which is one point I’ll give Nintendo, every console of there’s has a great first party lineup.

The Switch equivalent of backwards compatibility is $60 Wii and Wii U ports.

The Switch equivalent of legacy content is a drip feed of a couple classics and mostly shovelware, with the kicker being that you can’t buy any old games and in the case of the “premium” tier runs games worse than original hardware.

The Switch’s third party support relies on stealing PlayStation and Xbox games for the sake of portability.

The Wii is called out for being underpowered and having a lot of shovelware, but the Switch is even worse in both those regards.

The Wii was more powerful than the PS2 and GameCube at least, while the Switch is barely more powerful than a PlayStation 3.

The Switch Eshop has several magnitudes more shovelware than the Wii did.

Oh yeah, did the Wii ever have drift with the Nunchuck and Wiimote? No? Something the Joycons still have.

How about homebrew capabilities? This is more personal but Nintendo’s iron fist of control really annoys me and the Wii’s homebrew capabilities soundly trump the Switch which still can’t be hacked.

Why shouldn’t I dislike Nintendo for failing not only where their competitors, Sony and Microsoft who allow purchases of classic games as well as backwards compatibility, but also fail in regards to their previous consoles? How am I anti-Nintendo for stating facts about how Nintendo’s new console fails in a lot of important areas?

The only areas the Switch is really better than the Wii is its excellent form factor and gimmick, and the fact that its an HD console, which is expected with technology moving forward.

@johnedwin I actually bought a Series S as my first Xbox. I bought due to it having the best legacy support of any modern console, and being able to play four generations worth of Xbox’s and some third party legacy games.

I didn’t own any Xbox before (PlayStation guy) and I didn’t have Xbox discs for previous consoles so it’s $200 cheaper for me to buy that and put the difference towards GamePass and games themselves.

I have the disc based PlayStation 5 as my main console for the generation, and can use that if I want to play Blu-Rays or DVDs. That and having lots of physical PS4 games.

Having an entry level Xbox was a really smart move by Microsoft. Xbox Series S is to the Series X, like the Switch Lite is to the Switch.

It’s a worthwhile purchase. I can play the Rareware N64 games that will either never come to Switch due to licensing, or will be locked to a $50 yearly rental, whereas I got all these games with Rare Replay as a one time purchase.

@RasandeRose oh I’m not saying Nintendo is the worst in every way or anything like that. I’m just saying I think going the Adobe route with their classic games is objectively a scummy decision. Availability of legacy content for a fair and reasonable price is very important to me. That availability means availability to purchase.

I didn’t mention DRM because I don’t think Nintendo isn’t enforcing it out of the goodness of their hearts. I believe they genuinely aren’t smart enough to enforce it, given how much anything regarding online or Internet terrifies them. I can assure you, just like they’ve done with DLC, subscriptions, microtransactions, paid online, and pushing digital games, Nintendo will get there soon. They’re always behind the curve technologically, so accept DRM for their next console.

In regards to game ownership, I wouldn’t even be surprised if Nintendo’s next console outright doesn’t even let you buy games. I’d wager they’d rather put all their games behind a subscription of five year installments of $1,000. Given how much Nintendo loves Adobe’s business model, why not lol?

@RasandeRose I mean, you could argue those are bad, but they actually get called out on it, and typically backpedal. In your own example Microsoft backpedalled in response to backlash over raising the Xbox Live price.

And even EA and Activision are far superior in legacy content availability, despite their other flaws, than Nintendo. Many of EA and Activision’s old games are available for purchase on modern platforms. None of Nintendo’s old games prior to the Wii have that distinction.

I’d argue that Nintendo trying to axe game ownership (NSO forcing rentals for an increasing amount of systems and games) altogether is much worse than anything any other company is trying to do.

When Microsoft tried to take away game ownership they were ratiod so hard they did a 180 and their current console is backwards compatible back to the OG Xbox. Nintendo tries to take away game ownership and their fans cheer them on.

It’s a difference of how the fanbases respond, not a difference of what the companies themselves do.

You’re arguing in bad faith if you think EA or Activision or Sony or anyone has near the amount of defenders and good faith to burn as Nintendo does. That’s the point, not whether a company is scummy or not.

@Znake upvoted for no NSO

@Wexter okay, let me just say thanks for the well thought out and empathetic response. Much more than what the other generous lad gifted me with. I think you’re right I shouldn’t have been so hyperbolic with my take. While I don’t like the DS at all, I’m glad that you were able to get joy out of it. I think any console that can bring joy to someone has value regardless of whether it’s my favorite or not.

I guess I viewed it as a race and the DS to me feels undeserving of its sales due to the fact that library doesn’t appeal to me. I guess I should change my claim to say, the DS has very few games I personally like, rather than having a poor library. Games are subjective after all.

And that’s a good point regarding touch screen as innovation, as well as the Vita’s sales failure. My opinion regarding the DS’s sales aren’t going to change but I won’t claim it has a bad library anymore, just one that doesn’t appeal to me.

I am curious though. What factors are important to you when determining how much you personally enjoy a console or even game?

@Wexter okay, that may be the case, but I do believe that the PSP justifies its existence better by virtue of the fact that its the first Sony handheld, and has no predecessor to live up to. Plus the media capabilities of the PSP were more revolutionary than the DS touch screen imo.

While its true many PSP games were lesser PS2 games, the DS was lesser Wii games as well. Overall the handhelds that best justify their own existence whether that be games, features, etc. would be the GameBoy Advance, PlayStation Portable, and 3DS.

I wouldn’t care about the DS’s success if it didn’t come so close to dethroning the king of all consoles, the PlayStation 2, while also outselling many superior consoles like PS1, Wii, GBA, PSP, 3DS, etc. It’s fine if you like it but I can’t say it does a very good job as a console when the other consoles I listed have masterpiece lineups, amazing features, or both. Many superior consoles deserved the DS’s sales, can’t say the DS did imo.

@Silly_G exactly, and subscription and purchase aren’t mutually exclusive.

ITunes, Amazon Prime, GamePass, and PS Plus all have both subscribe and buy options. Adobe and NSO are the only “services” I know of that force rentals.

If a subscription service has to lock content to the subscription, it’s an objectively bad “service”.

@GrailUK oh I didn’t miss out on it, just think making it limited time was a bad decision regardless. My apologies for the confusion.

Okay so I used to be excited whenever the Switch would break milestones, like when it broke 100 million, outselling Wii and PSX, but nowadays, I wonder if that success is really deserved.

My opinion on Nintendo has changed drastically throughout the Switch lifecycle. A company I once had a lot of respect for, a company that once treated their legacy content with the respect it deserved, is now a power hungry greedy soulless corporation that takes every opportunity it can to spit in fans faces.

The Mario ROM Collection being limited time for no good reason, Nintendo Switch Online forcing rentals like Adobe products, the Extortion Pack as a whole (really? Forcing a year’s subscription?), and shutting down the Wii U and 3DS eShops with no viable alternatives. NSO doesn’t count until it allows classic games to be purchased, rentals are never a substitute for purchases.

Sorry if this is unrelated but I had to vent my frustration with how terribly Nintendo has been handling itself, the greed, the disrespect towards its history, the axing of game ownership, etc.

If EA or Sony or Microsoft or Activision pulled a fraction of the cheap stunts Nintendo did during the Switch era, we’d never hear the end of it lol.

@Wexter the vast majority of those are niche and those that aren’t the GBA did first and better. GBA was much better for first party games, plus all Pokémon titles are basically the same game anyways so that isn’t helping your case.

If the PSP were made by Nintendo we’d never hear the end of how revolutionary and groundbreaking it was. Since it wasn’t you gloss over it to act like the DS’s paltry library means anything.

The PSP soundly trounces it in every way, including library (PSOne Classics).

@JasmineDragon let me guess, you’re mad because I criticized Nintendo for going the Adobe route with classic games? Sorry, but if any other company would get punished, why shouldn’t Nintendo?

And on the DS, since you love to make assumptions about others, I don’t hate it because its casual (the Wii is a stellar console), I hate it because it has no masterpiece games.

All games that other guy mentioned are niche, and the DS in no way deserves to be anywhere near the titan that is the PS2 in sales. That’s just a fact.

@Banjo- very true. Microsoft is the best at game preservation by far this generation, and Nintendo is the absolute worst.

Microsoft has both subscription and purchase options for their games, no game is locked to GamePass, it’s purely an option.

The DS is easily Nintendo's worst console. The library is atrociously terrible. Very few good games.

GBA to DS, name a bigger downgrade. Best handheld console to worst.

No idea how it beat the PSP, which was better in every way, and the only time a competing handheld put Nintendo's offering to shame.

@WallyWest As long as the gameplay is different in a meaningful way it seems interesting.