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.
I know lemmy really has a strong sentiment against Nintendo, but for me personally, I am happy about this. I think its fair to download and emulate games when there is no legal version being offered anywhere. I would also say that being offered through subscription only doesn’t change that either. But if there is a version for sale by Nintendo, I am happy to buy that instead. I don’t think piracy is justified just because you are angry at a company. If I can purchase a copy on my modern system, that is the way I’m gonna go.
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.
I’m curious, what is a reasonable price to you for these games? Because as far as I’m concerned, buying both games for the price of buying one of them 20 years ago feels pretty reasonable. I agree that they drip feed the removed out of us on actually providing a way to play these games. But releasing these games in a way that you can bring forward to additional systems, and not putting them behind a subscription is a move that should be prasied. I just think it’s a step in the right direction. I’ll take the ability to own one game on my modern system over owning zero.
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.
Fair enough, I would personally prefer those price points too. I agree that this isn’t a particularly meaningful option. But it is significantly more meaningful than what existed before it. I think the big disparity on the pricing is a symptom of everything having a subscription nowadays. Not justifying it, just acknowledging it. They probably tell themselves that $20 for one game is fair becuase they could have charged $20/month if they added it to NSO. It does feel high, but just the added value of not having to pay a subscription every month or year to play this game feels significant to me. I recognize that’s a bit dystopian, but it feels like a tiny breath of fresh air in this gaming landscape.
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.
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.
Kinda wild to claim that a purchase of a game 20 years ago justifies pirating a game now. It’s not like no one had to do any work to get it going on Switch. They had to make GBA features connect between Switch systems. But you play how you wanna play. I just don’t like all the gatekeeping a lot of people do about people buying a copy.
I mean there are smaller people who work at the billion dollar company. You think the devs who ported this release at Nintendo are billionaires? Just because you hate a brand doesn’t mean everything that they do is exclusively handled by greedy mustache-twirling villains. The games industry is full of regular people who deserve to get paid just as much as anyone else does. I’m not going to justify fucking those people over by pretending they don’t exist while I steal from a faceless brand. A handful of greedy assholes making decisions at the top aren’t the only people who are impacted.
It’s moreso that if I made something and worked hard on it, I wouldn’t think people were justified in stealing it just because they think the company I work for is shitty. I want to pay those people for something they made that I enjoyed. I don’t see Nintendo as a person, but I do see the people at Nintendo as people. At the end of the day, your $20 boycott isn’t going to make or break it for those people. But they do deserve my money when they create something I enjoy in my opinion. You are welcome to disagree and not buy it all you want.
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.
I know lemmy really has a strong sentiment against Nintendo, but for me personally, I am happy about this. I think its fair to download and emulate games when there is no legal version being offered anywhere. I would also say that being offered through subscription only doesn’t change that either. But if there is a version for sale by Nintendo, I am happy to buy that instead. I don’t think piracy is justified just because you are angry at a company. If I can purchase a copy on my modern system, that is the way I’m gonna go.
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.
I’m curious, what is a reasonable price to you for these games? Because as far as I’m concerned, buying both games for the price of buying one of them 20 years ago feels pretty reasonable. I agree that they drip feed the removed out of us on actually providing a way to play these games. But releasing these games in a way that you can bring forward to additional systems, and not putting them behind a subscription is a move that should be prasied. I just think it’s a step in the right direction. I’ll take the ability to own one game on my modern system over owning zero.
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.
Fair enough, I would personally prefer those price points too. I agree that this isn’t a particularly meaningful option. But it is significantly more meaningful than what existed before it. I think the big disparity on the pricing is a symptom of everything having a subscription nowadays. Not justifying it, just acknowledging it. They probably tell themselves that $20 for one game is fair becuase they could have charged $20/month if they added it to NSO. It does feel high, but just the added value of not having to pay a subscription every month or year to play this game feels significant to me. I recognize that’s a bit dystopian, but it feels like a tiny breath of fresh air in this gaming landscape.
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.
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.
Kinda wild to claim that a purchase of a game 20 years ago justifies pirating a game now. It’s not like no one had to do any work to get it going on Switch. They had to make GBA features connect between Switch systems. But you play how you wanna play. I just don’t like all the gatekeeping a lot of people do about people buying a copy.
Do you work for the billion dollar company? Weird fucking take you have portraying them as a victim
I mean there are smaller people who work at the billion dollar company. You think the devs who ported this release at Nintendo are billionaires? Just because you hate a brand doesn’t mean everything that they do is exclusively handled by greedy mustache-twirling villains. The games industry is full of regular people who deserve to get paid just as much as anyone else does. I’m not going to justify fucking those people over by pretending they don’t exist while I steal from a faceless brand. A handful of greedy assholes making decisions at the top aren’t the only people who are impacted.
Thinking that pirating a $20 game from Nintendo is fucking someone over is a wild take. Stop treating international giga corporations like people
It’s moreso that if I made something and worked hard on it, I wouldn’t think people were justified in stealing it just because they think the company I work for is shitty. I want to pay those people for something they made that I enjoyed. I don’t see Nintendo as a person, but I do see the people at Nintendo as people. At the end of the day, your $20 boycott isn’t going to make or break it for those people. But they do deserve my money when they create something I enjoy in my opinion. You are welcome to disagree and not buy it all you want.
No need to attack me for stating an opinion. You could try discussing the topic instead of contributing nothing to the conversation.
I feel like people who were never gonna buy it no matter what the price tag was just want something to be mad at.
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.
I think this is all too common of a sentiment around here. A lot of people end up turning it into gatekeeping and it just gets old.