News: 54 Companies Join Nintendo Against R4 Piracy Page 2

knighty 29.07.2008#26

And they in turn are stealing form the companies by making money from their products with no money given back.

James2t3 29.07.2008#27

You got to be retarded to think there isn\'t any diffrence, this kind of pirating results in potentially thousands of copies being distributed very easily, from just one copy.
At least with second hand games theres a certain amount of first purchases to fuel the market.

( Edited 29.07.2008 15:18 by Blade2t3 )

XBL Gamertag: James2t3

J4K 29.07.2008#28

knighty said:
And they in turn are stealing form the companies by making money from their products with no money given back.

They aren't stealing from the company. They're buying their product from someone who already paid for it. No theft occurs, money changes hands, the person who sold the game to the gamespot likely buys a new game with the cash.

Stealing doesn't put any money at all into the industry.

knighty 29.07.2008#29

I\'m pretty sure the amount of pirating is far outweighed by second hand games.

edit: Not putting money into GAME\'s fat pockets which doesn\'t go towards game development or anything is something I\'m willing to stomach.....

( Edited 29.07.2008 15:25 by knighty )

Canyarion 29.07.2008#30

I was sitting in the training with a young family. The dad had a card with many illegal games on them. He played 3 minutes of every game and got bored with them...

I was glad that all my Nintendo games are legal. Smilie

I only pirate DS games, and as I said, very rarely. I have like 4 games.
What is the difference between buying a second hand game, borrowing one, and pirating one? THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. In all 3 cases the publisher/developer gets no money from you.

Not true. If you pirate a game, you won\'t buy a used game.
If you buy a used game, somebody else can not buy that one, so might have to buy a new one. The closer the used price is to the new price, the more people will buy new versions.

It\'s all about market price. By buying a used game, you increase the market price. Haven\'t you played World of Warcraft??

( Edited 29.07.2008 15:37 by Canyarion )

James2t3 29.07.2008#31

I've played FF4 on the DS for over 5 hours and it's a copy Smilie

XBL Gamertag: James2t3

erv 29.07.2008#32

knighty said:
I'm pretty sure the amount of pirating is far outweighed by second hand games.
edit: Not putting money into GAME's fat pockets which doesn't go towards game development or anything is something I'm willing to stomach.....

I think knighty has a valid point, because in the end it is the publishers that rip off the developers that start crying about their even more bucks for stuff they didn't even create...

In the end though, business channeling is a weakness.

And yeah, the importing stuff statement thing is a joke. Wouldn't companies like Nintendo be far better off if there was no region lock anyway? Seems to me it would save a lot of hassle...

J4K 29.07.2008#33

knighty said:
I'm pretty sure the amount of pirating is far outweighed by second hand games.
edit: Not putting money into GAME's fat pockets which doesn't go towards game development or anything is something I'm willing to stomach.....

Dude don't kid yourself, it's stealing. I don't really care if you do it or not. Doesn't take anything from me, but trying to justify it is a waste of time.

knighty 29.07.2008#34

And I don't really give a shit what you think.

As far as I'm concerned, no money going to the makers = stealing. As I've already said, most games state on them that you can't lend without permission.

J4K 29.07.2008#35

knighty said:
And I don\'t really give a shit what you think.
As far as I\'m concerned, no money going to the makers = stealing. As I\'ve already said, most games state on them that you can\'t lend without permission.

So libraries are stealing? Renting a game is stealing? What about other stuff: If I buy a bike off a friend of mine, or if I buy a lot of used golf balls off eBay, you think I\'m stealing from those companies?

Not that you care what I think, but to be honest, none of the above seems wrong. And its legal.

( Edited 29.07.2008 16:26 by Jacob4000 )

JoshSL 29.07.2008#36

Knighty I think there's definitely a difference. Borrowing, renting and second hand is just another way of growing interest. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if some companies supported it as interest in a game grows.

But getting a game for free via pirating is stealing. You cannot put it more simply.

Also Blade, no need to call people retards.

Also Blade, I bought FFIV DS full price and I own the GBA version too. I still think the DS version was worth every penny.

Twitter | C3 Writer/Moderator | Backloggery

James2t3 29.07.2008#37

Well thats your opinion I don't think it was worth buying again so I didn't buy it Smilie .

XBL Gamertag: James2t3

knighty 29.07.2008#38

Jacob4000 said:
knighty said:
And I don't really give a shit what you think.
As far as I'm concerned, no money going to the makers = stealing. As I've already said, most games state on them that you can't lend without permission.
So libraries are stealing? Renting a game is stealing? What about other stuff: If I buy a bike off a friend of mine, or if I buy a lot of used golf balls off eBay, you think I'm stealing from those companies?
Not that you care what I think, but to be honest, none of the above seems wrong. And its legal.

How is a library the same thing? They pay for the book FROM THE PUBLISHER and lend to you. Same with game renting. With 2nd hand sales NOTHING goes back into the game development. That is my point.

J4K 29.07.2008#39

How is a library the same thing? They pay for the book FROM THE PUBLISHER and lend to you. Same with game renting. With 2nd hand sales NOTHING goes back into the game development. That is my point.

Its sort of the same difference though as far as money flow goes - with a rental, you pay Blockbuster a few bucks and play the game at home, enjoy it, then give it a back.

If I buy a used game or borrow it off a buddy, he/they still bought it from the publisher too. In essence, it is pretty much the same thing.

( Edited 29.07.2008 16:47 by Jacob4000 )

Darkflame 29.07.2008#40

When you buy a second hand game you give no money to the publisher, but *becuase* you create the second hand market, it means people that sale their second hand games DO give money to the publisher, because they normaly buy another game at the same time.

I dont know about anyone else here, but I sure as hell dont swap anything for money. You get next-to-nothing.
If your going to swap in, say, Gamestation. Its far better to swap for an instore rebate.

I think this is what most people do.

knighty said:
err.not quite.
Mainly because when someone takes back a game, they normaly use the money to get money off another game.
Its like instead of buying 2 new games, your buying \"1 and a half\" (in terms of revenue going back to the publisher).
Errrr no because that would only work if they paid you more for your returns

You do, effectively.
When you take back a game, you normaly, at very most, get 10-15GBP off another game. Its not a 1:1 exchange.

Also, when you purchase the other game, the \"10-15GBP\" off is taken from the retail cut. The shop pays the same for the game to the publisher.

Effectively, from the publishers standpoint they are getting more in from *two* games (the game I buy first, and the game I buy with the discount of taking the first back..they get full money from both).

They then lose the money from the person that buys the game I took back.

So, they get 2 sales rather then 3.

Thats assumeing that person that buys the game I took back would have paid full price anyway.

It really isnt the same as just downloading a game, which is...umm...no money to the publisher.

The only situation where a second hand game would equal piracy would be where your swapping a second hand game for another second hand game.
Personaly, I never do this.
I think a few people do it between friends, but as far as shops go, I know its mostly swapping \"old games for a new game just out\" type thing.
=====

Anyway, you\'re insane if you think any DS game takes as long to develop nowadays as a PS1/N64 game would have.

Some N64 games and some PS1 games certainly, yes.
Heck, I\'m sure shitloads of DS games cost more then Wii games to make.

How you can say, that 30GBP is too much for Phantom Hourglass, Mario Kart, Hunters, Advanced Wars ect, but 40GBP is a fine price for, say, \"EA Playground\"
Do you see how crazy it is?

You think EA spent more time on that game, then any of those DS ones?

Some DS games DO take a few years to make. Some Wii games merely take months.

Its the *quality* that should dictate cost.
The enjoyment you get out of it.

And the best DS games can more then reveal the best console games for that.
Its ignorance to claim they are shorter or less fun just because of the platform.

When massive console games are �40

There are very,very few \"massive console games\", and I certainly dont think the average length is shorter on the DS.
Actualy, with the huge number of RPGs its probably longer.

There isnt this correlation you are presenting.
Theres just as many short console games are there are short portable games.
The portability has nothing to do with quality, or length.

Its the nature of the game that dictates its value, not platform.

( Edited 29.07.2008 16:56 by Darkflame )

Edit this post:

When you buy a second hand game you give no money to the publisher, but *becuase* you create the second hand market, it means people that sale their second hand games DO give money to the publisher, because they normaly buy another game at the same time.

I dont know about anyone else here, but I sure as hell dont swap anything for money. You get next-to-nothing.
If your going to swap in, say, Gamestation. Its far better to swap for an instore rebate.

I think this is what most people do.

[quote][b]knighty said:[/b]<br/>[quote]err.not quite.
Mainly because when someone takes back a game, they normaly use the money to get money off another game.
Its like instead of buying 2 new games, your buying "1 and a half" (in terms of revenue going back to the publisher).  [/quote]

Errrr no because that would only work if they paid you more for your returns 
[/quote]

You do, effectively.
When you take back a game, you normaly, at very most, get 10-15GBP off another game. Its not a 1:1 exchange.

Also, when you purchase the other game, the "10-15GBP" off is taken from the retail cut. The shop pays the same for the game to the publisher.

Effectively, from the publishers standpoint they are getting more in from *two* games (the game I buy first, and the game I buy with the discount of taking the first back..they get full money from both).

They then lose the money from the person that buys the game I took back.

So, they get 2 sales rather then 3.

Thats assumeing that person that buys the game I took back would have paid full price anyway.

It really isnt the same as just downloading a game, which is...umm...no money to the publisher.

The only situation where a second hand game would equal piracy would be where your swapping a second hand game for another second hand game. 
Personaly, I never do this. 
I think a few people do it between friends, but as far as shops go, I know its mostly swapping "old games for a new game just out" type thing.
=====

[quote]Anyway, you're insane if you think any DS game takes as long to develop nowadays as a PS1/N64 game would have. [/quote]

Some N64 games and some PS1 games certainly, yes.
Heck, I'm sure shitloads of DS games cost more then Wii games to make.

How you can say, that 30GBP is too much for Phantom Hourglass, Mario Kart, Hunters, Advanced Wars ect, but 40GBP is a fine price for, say, "EA Playground"
Do you see how crazy it is?

You think EA spent more time on that game, then any of those DS ones?

Some DS games DO take a few years to make. Some Wii games merely take months.

Its the *quality* that should dictate cost.
The enjoyment you get out of it.

And the best DS games can more then reveal the best console games for that.
Its ignorance to claim they are shorter or less fun just because of the platform.

[quote] When massive console games are �40 [/quote]

There are very,very few "massive console games", and I certainly dont think the average length is shorter on the DS.
Actualy, with the huge number of RPGs its probably longer.

There isnt this correlation you are presenting.
Theres just as many short console games are there are short portable games.
The portability has nothing to do with quality, or length.

Its the nature of the game that dictates its value, not platform.
<p/>

Save Changes Cancel Full Edit

http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+.

knighty 29.07.2008#41

And the person who uploaded the pirated version probably has the game too.

There are very,very few \"massive console games\", and I certainly dont think the average length is shorter on the DS.
Actualy, with the huge number of RPGs its probably longer.

That\'s because you own a Wii.

( Edited 29.07.2008 16:50 by knighty )

J4K 29.07.2008#42

knighty said:
And the person who uploaded the pirated version probably has the game too.

But the 50,000 people who download it don\'t...

The difference between pirated and used is simple. If there are 50,000 used copies of the game that have been purchased, than, effectively, the Publisher has sold 50,000 copies regardless of how many people use the copy.

With piracy, one copy can end up being duplicated thousands of times costing the publisher millions of dollars.

Also Blade, I bought FFIV DS full price and I own the GBA version too. I still think the DS version was worth every penny.

I need to get that game, looks awesome. I loved it on the SNES.

( Edited 29.07.2008 16:54 by Jacob4000 )

evilflame 29.07.2008#43

When they allowed imports, i'll agree to stopping piracy.

Lrrr 29.07.2008#44

Jacob4000 said:
So libraries are stealing? Renting a game is stealing?

Rental copies of Films and Games have to be granted permission to do so or else it is illegal.

The back of DVD cases and games also state things like \'Not for Rental\' or \'Not for Resale\' (as in 2nd hand). So if you are playing/watching something from a rental store that has not got permission to rent it out, then yes, and the company can get into a great deal of trouble for copyright infringement.

And I\'m pretty sure theres something about the copyright of books that allows a library to lend them out, there is nothing in the copyright declaration of most books that states it is illegal to lend.

I think lending is fine in the eyes of the law as long as you aren\'t doing for profit or something, or as long as your not in breach of the Licening agreements.

Edit: hell, your not even supposed to watch DVDs/Videos on a coach unless it\'s the approved version, as in this case, one person buys the Film and then a whole coachload can watch it for free

( Edited 29.07.2008 16:59 by Lrrr )

James2t3 29.07.2008#45

When they allowed imports, i\'ll agree to stopping piracy.

Who is stopping you from importing?
The only time they gave a shit about importing was the pokemon thing which yeah was a bit cuntish but they don\'t care about any other games being imported.

( Edited 29.07.2008 17:04 by Blade2t3 )

XBL Gamertag: James2t3

Lrrr 29.07.2008#46

Well, they blocked the Freeloader didn't they, so you can't import games on the Wii and play them unless you didn't update back then.

Wasn't Sony apparently going to stop the 2nd hand trade of PS3 games by somehow linking a disc to a single machine?

James2t3 29.07.2008#47

Oh right, forgot about the Wii I thought he was just talking about the DS.

XBL Gamertag: James2t3

Lrrr 29.07.2008#48

How you can say, that 30GBP is too much for Phantom Hourglass, Mario Kart, Hunters, Advanced Wars ect, but 40GBP is a fine price for, say, "EA Playground"
Do you see how crazy it is?

No one said that �40 was acceptable for some lame rehash by EA.

And yes, IMO �30 is too much for a game considering that US gets it for $30-35 (�15-17.50). And �40 is also too much for a console game when the US gets them for $60 (�30).

J4K 29.07.2008#49

Lrrr said:
No one said that �40 was acceptable for some lame rehash by EA.
And yes, IMO �30 is too much for a game considering that US gets it for $30-35 (�15-17.50). And �40 is also too much for a console game when the US gets them for $60 (�30).

I\'ve sort of thought about this for a while and been meaning to bring it up, on the question of value of money.

For instance, $20 to me is the same as it always has been. If the dollar suddenly becomes worth twice as much as the Pound tomorrow, I\'m not going to complain that my games cost too much. They cost me the same as they always have. Just as my grandparents aren\'t going to write me a check this Christmas for $100 instead of $50 because the dollar is getting weaker compared the pound. The money might be worth more/less on the world market, but it still buys me the same video games either way. You know what I mean? It is sort of tough to really explain I suppose...(and its off topic, bad Jacob, bad)

Anyhow, I don\'t think the R4 is a bad device. I thought about getting one to add some multimedia to my DS, but ended up getting a better MP3 player instead. But if they are actively trying to facilitate the playing and downloading of illegal games, then Nintendo does have the right go after them.

( Edited 29.07.2008 17:22 by Jacob4000 )

Martin_ 29.07.2008#50

SuperLink said:
I think �30 for DS games is alright, especially since GBA games were also �30, and a lot of DS games have a lot more work put into them than GBA games.

That doesn\'t make DS games \'fairly priced\'. They\'re fucking rip-offs. GBA game prices were simply more ridiculous.

( Edited 29.07.2008 18:27 by Martin_ )