Nintendo has released a lengthy Q&A article discussing its decision to re-launch Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen separately — rather than as part of the Nintendo Switch Online service.
When I had a Wii, I bought games I had played and wanted to play on the NES when I was younger. Now I have nothing to show for it. Never again. At least with Steam, GOG, or pirating, the power is in my hands to keep those games for as long as I can. Nintendo doesn’t give me that option in any legal manner.
I feel like people who were never gonna buy it no matter what the price tag was just want something to be mad at.
So if no one responds, it’s because they have no rebuttal, but if they do, they’re proving your point. Quite the big brain theory there. My point was that it had nothing to do with the price tag, except that the value proposition isn’t there when they can just stop giving you access whenever it becomes inconvenient for them. Moreover, while I have regrets about buying stuff on the Wii store, I’m not angry at them. So it just sounds like you’re saying I’m not much of a customer for a restaurant that I don’t go to anymore just because I got food poisoning a few times. Must be me and not them. And you sound like you’re defending a shitty company because people say their product isn’t worth buying.
If you respond to tell me that you were never gonna buy it, you prove my point.
It’s just kind of tiring how every post about anything Nintendo does ever has the exactly same whining every time, especially when you’re not actually whining about FRLG here at all, you’re just whining to whine. You just want something to be mad at.
Well, you can keep going to the restaurant with hair in the food. It’s not a problem with their practices, my standards are just unreasonably high. Whatever you have to tell yourself to justify why you keep eating food with hair in it.
Even from indie devs. Many have said that if you don’t have the money to buy their game to get it and play it anyway. More eyes on it and word of mouth and whatnot.
You were right in your first comment, but this is plainly false. Not pirating, mind, but making copies of what you already own is legal, at least in US and most of Europe.
I do whatever I want regardless. That you go out of your way to defend the multi-billion company from copyright theft is pointless, when nowadays agents like Meta have been reported stealing millions of copyrighted materials and nothing happened.
If a company shows no respect for its consumers by nickel and diming them for everything, then there is no reason to show a company respect by purchasing its products.
If they re-released their entire back catalogue at reasonable prices—not locking them behind a subscription—with a commitment to letting users transfer them to future consoles without an upgrade fee, then things would be different.
Unlike physical cartridges, a digital, emulated copy of FireRed has no resale or collector’s value. The lack of physical copies for virtual console games also means each copy sold costs Nintendo nothing beyond the initial emulator development cost, which would be minuscule on a per-game basis.
Considering those factors, and the Switch having a higher install base than prior systems (over ten times Wii U unit sales), maintaining the Wii U and 3DS price points is the most reasonable means for Nintendo to monetize their back catalogue in a way that makes piracy less enticing for many people: $3 per GB, $4 per GBC, $5 per NES, $7-8 per GBA, $8 per SNES, $10 per N64/DS, and $20 per Wii.
Given that each emulated console only requires that a Switch emulator be developed for it once (something Nintendo has already done for NSO) to support hundreds of paid titles, there’s no need to increase prices when the games will sell several times more than they had any chance to on the Wii U.
Given how many games NSO includes, they could continue offering them that way for people who prefer renting their library. Consumers want meaningful options; pricing a GBA game at $20 is not that.
If a company shows no respect for its consumers by nickel and diming them for everything, then there is no reason to show a company respect by purchasing its products.
Sure, but there is a difference between not giving them money, and not giving them money but getting their product anyway.
“I don’t like your product or practices, so I’m not going to purchase it” is not the same as “I like your product but not your practices, so I’m going to pirate it.”
Video games are not exactly a vital good like food.
Blind consumer loyalty only incentivizes Nintendo to further raise prices and make their products less consumer friendly.
Piracy simply demonstrates a problem with supply; if Nintendo wants to solve it, the solution isn’t trying to cuts heads off of a hydra, but rather adjust prices to capture unrealized market potential.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you’re submitting before posting to see if it’s already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don’t share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don’t want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
deleted by creator
I feel like people who were never gonna buy it no matter what the price tag was just want something to be mad at.
deleted by creator
When I had a Wii, I bought games I had played and wanted to play on the NES when I was younger. Now I have nothing to show for it. Never again. At least with Steam, GOG, or pirating, the power is in my hands to keep those games for as long as I can. Nintendo doesn’t give me that option in any legal manner.
So you were never gonna buy it no matter what the price tag was.
You see where they said “I bought games”? It means they bought it.
They were never gonna buy this game.
You’re right, because I’ve literally done it before with them and have nothing to show for it. So which of us is the fool?
Well if you’re replying me just to tell me you were never going to buy it, you’re proving my point.
So if no one responds, it’s because they have no rebuttal, but if they do, they’re proving your point. Quite the big brain theory there. My point was that it had nothing to do with the price tag, except that the value proposition isn’t there when they can just stop giving you access whenever it becomes inconvenient for them. Moreover, while I have regrets about buying stuff on the Wii store, I’m not angry at them. So it just sounds like you’re saying I’m not much of a customer for a restaurant that I don’t go to anymore just because I got food poisoning a few times. Must be me and not them. And you sound like you’re defending a shitty company because people say their product isn’t worth buying.
If you respond to tell me that you were never gonna buy it, you prove my point.
It’s just kind of tiring how every post about anything Nintendo does ever has the exactly same whining every time, especially when you’re not actually whining about FRLG here at all, you’re just whining to whine. You just want something to be mad at.
Well, you can keep going to the restaurant with hair in the food. It’s not a problem with their practices, my standards are just unreasonably high. Whatever you have to tell yourself to justify why you keep eating food with hair in it.
Piracy is justified because I already own those games, and they’re not backwards compatible. I’m not going to pay for the same game multiple times.
piracy is always justified
Probably not from indie developers
Even from indie devs. Many have said that if you don’t have the money to buy their game to get it and play it anyway. More eyes on it and word of mouth and whatnot.
deleted by creator
You were right in your first comment, but this is plainly false. Not pirating, mind, but making copies of what you already own is legal, at least in US and most of Europe.
deleted by creator
I do whatever I want regardless. That you go out of your way to defend the multi-billion company from copyright theft is pointless, when nowadays agents like Meta have been reported stealing millions of copyrighted materials and nothing happened.
Do you work for the billion dollar company? Weird fucking take you have portraying them as a victim
deleted by creator
The devs already got paid. The money spent buying this game just goes to the higher ups who spent 0 time actually working on the game.
Thinking that pirating a $20 game from Nintendo is fucking someone over is a wild take. Stop treating international giga corporations like people
deleted by creator
The work was already done, and the people who worked on it have already been paid. Nobody’s getting royalties here.
removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
If a company shows no respect for its consumers by nickel and diming them for everything, then there is no reason to show a company respect by purchasing its products.
If they re-released their entire back catalogue at reasonable prices—not locking them behind a subscription—with a commitment to letting users transfer them to future consoles without an upgrade fee, then things would be different.
deleted by creator
Unlike physical cartridges, a digital, emulated copy of FireRed has no resale or collector’s value. The lack of physical copies for virtual console games also means each copy sold costs Nintendo nothing beyond the initial emulator development cost, which would be minuscule on a per-game basis.
Considering those factors, and the Switch having a higher install base than prior systems (over ten times Wii U unit sales), maintaining the Wii U and 3DS price points is the most reasonable means for Nintendo to monetize their back catalogue in a way that makes piracy less enticing for many people: $3 per GB, $4 per GBC, $5 per NES, $7-8 per GBA, $8 per SNES, $10 per N64/DS, and $20 per Wii.
Given that each emulated console only requires that a Switch emulator be developed for it once (something Nintendo has already done for NSO) to support hundreds of paid titles, there’s no need to increase prices when the games will sell several times more than they had any chance to on the Wii U.
Given how many games NSO includes, they could continue offering them that way for people who prefer renting their library. Consumers want meaningful options; pricing a GBA game at $20 is not that.
deleted by creator
Sure, but there is a difference between not giving them money, and not giving them money but getting their product anyway.
“I don’t like your product or practices, so I’m not going to purchase it” is not the same as “I like your product but not your practices, so I’m going to pirate it.”
Video games are not exactly a vital good like food.
Blind consumer loyalty only incentivizes Nintendo to further raise prices and make their products less consumer friendly.
Piracy simply demonstrates a problem with supply; if Nintendo wants to solve it, the solution isn’t trying to cuts heads off of a hydra, but rather adjust prices to capture unrealized market potential.
I did not say anything about blind consumer loyalty, so that comment feels strange in the context of this conversation.