Current Events > Tell us why you think you deserve Nintendo products for free

(+) Yeah! (+)

Go ahead guys
---

Because it makes nerds real salty
---

Other.

I'm an entitled little bastard that doesn't actually care about anything other than my own enjoyment

you probably downloaded a bunch and played them for like 2 minutes too
---

Because 30% of the games are prohibitively expensive and at least 40% wasn't released outside of Japan.
---

Hop103 posted...

Because 30% of the games are prohibitively expensive and at least 40% wasn't released outside of Japan.

"It wasn't released outside of Japan, and I can't afford it anyway, so I deserve it for FREE"
---

Hop103 posted...

Because 30% of the games are prohibitively expensive and at least 40% wasn't released outside of Japan.

This is ultimately the reason behind all piracy.

"I want it and I don't want to pay for it."

Nice to see people are finally admitting it.
---

All games are property
And all property is theft
---

Nintendo is combating piracy in the right way, going after the mass uploaders and not just anyone downloading a ROM like the music industry did and people still hate them for it?
---

charey posted...

Nintendo is combating piracy in the right way, going after the mass uploaders and not just anyone downloading a ROM like the music industry did and people still hate them for it?

Yes because 'muh preservation'
---

If poor black people steal food because they can't afford to eat they deserve jail time because laws are laws. But I'm entitled to free Nintendo games so stfu.

Nerd logic.
---

Shotgunnova posted...

All games are property
And all property is theft

Except IP isn't actually property because it has no scarcity and no one suffers a loss when you download a copy of the original. The only loss is "potential sales" but those sales are predicated on creating a scarcity that does not actually exist.
---

Daily reminder that you can check out video games from the library
---

Most ROMs I would download there is literally no way to buy from Nintendo
---

DarthAragorn posted...

Most ROMs I would download there is literally no way to buy from Nintendo

This. I always gladly buy games that interest me if Nintendo gives me a method to buy them and support them, such as re-releasing them on the Virtual Console. Hell, I re-bought every single gen 1/2 Pokemon game when they re-released them on 3DS in the last couple of years. But if Nintendo doesn't offer a way to buy the game, then to Nintendo it doesn't matter whether I buy the old game at Vintage Stock or download a ROM of it, because Nintendo gains nothing and loses nothing either way. But if they make more old games available, then more people will buy them for the convenience of not having to search through pirate sites to find ROMs.

"The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting anti-piracy technology to work. It's by giving those people a service that's better than what they're receiving from the pirates."
~ Gabe Newell
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Hop103 posted...

Because 30% of the games are prohibitively expensive and at least 40% wasn't released outside of Japan.

This is ultimately the reason behind all piracy.

"I want it and I don't want to pay for it."

Nice to see people are finally admitting it.

Can't pay can't play
---

FlyingForever posted...

Can't pay can't play

There's a clear difference between "I can't or don't want to pay for this game" and "Nintendo literally does not want to take my money because they won't sell me this game even though I'm perfectly willing to pay for it, so I must look elsewhere for it"
---

Godnorgosh posted...

Darmik posted...

charey posted...

Nintendo is combating piracy in the right way, going after the mass uploaders and not just anyone downloading a ROM like the music industry did and people still hate them for it?

Yes because 'muh preservation'

There is no excuse to side with Nintendo here other than "Because they can."

Yes there is. I want legitimate ways to download and play old games. I want the laws to improve for games lost in legal limbo. I want demand from consumers to improve.

I don't feel sympathy for a site getting shut down because 500,000 people downloaded Super Mario World from it.
---

ssjevot posted...

Shotgunnova posted...

All games are property
And all property is theft

Except IP isn't actually property because it has no scarcity and no one suffers a loss when you download a copy of the original. The only loss is "potential sales" but those sales are predicated on creating a scarcity that does not actually exist.

The natural end to this reasoning is that no digital media can exist, except for crappy nonprofit stuff.
---

This topic was only made to troll. :(

Offers nothing to the discussion.
---

DevsBro posted...

ssjevot posted...

Shotgunnova posted...

All games are property
And all property is theft

Except IP isn't actually property because it has no scarcity and no one suffers a loss when you download a copy of the original. The only loss is "potential sales" but those sales are predicated on creating a scarcity that does not actually exist.

The natural end to this reasoning is that no digital media can exist, except for crappy nonprofit stuff.

Yeah because no method exists to prefund digital media and no one ever pays anything more than the minimum when things are sold as pay what you want. /s
---

Godnorgosh posted...

Darmik posted...

Yes there is. I want legitimate ways to download and play old games. I want the laws to improve for games lost in legal limbo. I want demand from consumers to improve.

Yeah, good luck getting that from Nintendo. Approximately what proportion of the NES and SNES libraries were on the NES and SNES Classics? Or any iteration of Virtual Console?

The stuff they published? Almost all of it was on VC.
---

Darmik posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

Darmik posted...

Yes there is. I want legitimate ways to download and play old games. I want the laws to improve for games lost in legal limbo. I want demand from consumers to improve.

Yeah, good luck getting that from Nintendo. Approximately what proportion of the NES and SNES libraries were on the NES and SNES Classics? Or any iteration of Virtual Console?

The stuff they published? Almost all of it was on VC.

The problem with SNES and NES classics is though a good chunk of first party games have successfully migrated BUT there is still some first party titles that never made the transition. Also there is the problem with a huge amount of 3rd party titles that died along with both systems that have not seen the light of day for a long long time. Also the region lock, and the lack of support of Fan Translators has also been up for debate as well. Nintendo doesn't realize despite how niche their JPN-ONLY titles are overseas that there are people who are interested thanks to the Fan Translators, and Fan Translators have expressed interest to work with them if Nintendo can learn to stop being holier than thou for once in their lives.

Some Companies are actually working with Fan Translators, it's niche right now but it's growing.
---

People really make fools of themselves trying to justify piracy.
---

I've been gaming for a long time and I expect even a $20 game to give me at least 400 hours of gameplay. The games should also have free content updates for at least 4 years, including expansion packs. Online multiplayer should be 100% free at the companies' expense. Also, all sequels should be original, but not do anything really new. They should also be original, but never, ever, change anything about my favorite characters. Also, if they try to expand their fanbase so they have more funds available to make more content, they are betraying the art form and I will respond accordingly.

Also, I don't want gaming journalism to exist, but I also don't want to stop going to the biggest sites because I demand to have daily updates from every studio I'm interested in.

- The modern gamers that are making us all look bad

I always thought Paid Online Multiplayer was the way to go...until FFXIV proved itself incompetent of actually being fun and acting more like a FTP game as of late (their cash shop is dumb as dirt).

Even I read Elder Scrolls Online was terrible.
---

DarkProto05 posted...

If poor black people steal food because they can't afford to eat they deserve jail time because laws are laws. But I'm entitled to free Nintendo games so stfu.

Nerd logic.

why's he gotta be black tho?
---

Because

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqeC3BPYTmE&hd=1
---

legendarylemur posted...

Because

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqeC3BPYTmE&hd=1

Every CEO in existence.
---

Hop103 posted...

Because 30% of the games are prohibitively expensive and at least 40% wasn't released outside of Japan.

So you deserve them for free because.....?

ssjevot posted...

Shotgunnova posted...

All games are property
And all property is theft

Except IP isn't actually property because it has no scarcity and no one suffers a loss when you download a copy of the original. The only loss is "potential sales" but those sales are predicated on creating a scarcity that does not actually exist.

The lack of scarcity or the fact that a copy doesn't disappear doesn't mean it isn't property. Also, they definitely suffer a loss - the money you owe them for the copy you stole, that you won't pay.

DarthAragorn posted...

Most ROMs I would download there is literally no way to buy from Nintendo

So you deserve them for free because.....?

Calwings posted...

FlyingForever posted...

Can't pay can't play

There's a clear difference between "I can't or don't want to pay for this game" and "Nintendo literally does not want to take my money because they won't sell me this game even though I'm perfectly willing to pay for it, so I must look elsewhere for it"

Capitalism means that a business has a right NOT to sell something they own. If you want it, buy a physical copy. If you can't, too fucking bad - you don't have an innate right to property that someone else owns.

As someone who has and likely will continue to pirate, pretending you have some innate right to do it is absolutely fucking asinine.
---

Your poll is a bit dickish but basically if they're not selling them in any form (physical or digital) then what's the problem with the ROMs? They want to complain about people getting them for free, make them available on their platforms in some way, then they've got something to complain about.
---

Syntheticon posted...

Your poll is a bit dickish but basically if they're not selling them in any form (physical or digital) then what's the problem with the ROMs? They want to complain about people getting them for free, make them available on their platforms in some way, then they've got something to complain about.

This position is based on a false premise - specifically, that you have some sort of right to consume the media in the first place.
---

darkjedilink posted...

The lack of scarcity or the fact that a copy doesn't disappear doesn't mean it isn't property. Also, they definitely suffer a loss - the money you owe them for the copy you stole, that you won't pay.

Yeah you don't seem to understand the difference between the law in the US (or whatever country you are basing this on) and the philosophical moral concept. The concept of IP is relatively new in history and it is a pervasion of property because if we lived in a world with no scarcity we wouldn't need property laws to begin with. Scarcity is a bad thing. We shouldn't want scarcity. Economics is how we deal with people's unlimited wants for limited goods. Creating scarcity artificially makes the world a worse place because it makes it harder for people to get what they want for no reason other than extracting profit. It is morally wrong, just as it would be if I had an apple tree that magically grew a new apple every time someone picked one and I charged them money for it anyway.
---

ssjevot posted...

darkjedilink posted...

ssjevot posted...

Shotgunnova posted...

All games are property
And all property is theft

Except IP isn't actually property because it has no scarcity and no one suffers a loss when you download a copy of the original. The only loss is "potential sales" but those sales are predicated on creating a scarcity that does not actually exist.

The lack of scarcity or the fact that a copy doesn't disappear doesn't mean it isn't property. Also, they definitely suffer a loss - the money you owe them for the copy you stole, that you won't pay.

Yeah you don't seem to understand the difference between the law in the US (or whatever country you are basing this on) and the philosophical moral concept. The concept of IP is relatively new in history and it is a pervasion of property because if we lived in a world with no scarcity we wouldn't need property laws to begin with. Scarcity is a bad thing. We shouldn't want scarcity. Economics is how we deal with people's unlimited wants for limited goods. Creating scarcity artificially makes the world a worse place because it makes it harder for people to get want they want for no reason other than extracting profit. It is morally wrong, just as it would be if I had an apple tree that magically grew a new apple every time someone picked one and I charged them money for it anyway.

Even if we had unlimited resources, you still don't have an innate right to someone else's work. If I make something, even if all the materials to make it are infinite, and even if I'm able to create an infinite number of copies of it, I have a RIGHT not to distribute it, and literally zero argument you could possibly make negates that.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Even if we had unlimited resources, you still don't have an innate right to someone else's work. If I make something, even if all the materials to make it are infinite, and even if I'm able to create an infinite number of copies of it, I have a RIGHT not to distribute it, and literally zero argument you could possibly make negates that.

Oh you are trying to create positive rights. That's always what wrecks everything in these discussions. You have unlimited negative rights, but it is impossible to create a positive right without trampling on someone else's negative rights. In order for you to get what you want you have to make the government prevent others from freely distributing copies they obtained. If you never distributed it and it's on a private server then yeah you win, because someone needs to break in and hack or steal your property to get a copy. But if you distributed it and someone uploads a copy you have no ability to stop them without removing their negative rights.
---

ssjevot posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Even if we had unlimited resources, you still don't have an innate right to someone else's work. If I make something, even if all the materials to make it are infinite, and even if I'm able to create an infinite number of copies of it, I have a RIGHT not to distribute it, and literally zero argument you could possibly make negates that.

Oh you are trying to create positive rights. That's always what wrecks everything in these discussions. You have unlimited negative rights, but it is impossible to create a positive right without trampling on someone else's negative rights. In order for you to get what you want you have to make the government prevent others from freely distributing copies they obtained. If you never distributed it and it's on a private server then yeah you win, because someone needs to break in and hack or steal your property to get a copy. But if you distributed it and someone uploads a copy you have no ability to stop them without removing their negative rights.

I'm not "creating" anything. Even if I chose to distribute it, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE IT AS WELL WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.

You're literally the only one creating rights in this conversation.
---

darkjedilink posted...

YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE IT AS WELL WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.

I don't really want to explain basic philosophy to you, but you have a negative right to do just that in the state of nature. You are claiming that you can't do it due to some other right, that is a positive right, only governments or a similar organization with a threat of violence can enforce such "rights". I mean it's like you live in the US but have zero understanding of the philosophical roots of the Constitution and bill of rights. Go read up on Locke and Hobbs and then get back to me.
---

ssjevot posted...

darkjedilink posted...

YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE IT AS WELL WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.

I don't really want to explain basic philosophy to you, but you have a negative right to do just that in the state of nature. You are claiming that you can't do it due to some other right, that is a positive right, only governments or a similar organization with a threat of violence can enforce such "rights". I mean it's like you live in the US but have zero understanding of the philosophical roots of the Constitution and bill of rights. Go read up on Locke and Hobbs and then get back to me.

Actually, YOU need to read up on the philosophical roots of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since you seem to think they create ANYTHING for citizens.

All they do is tell the GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do. THAT IS ALL. It doesn't create rights, and it most certainly isn't needed to enforce rights in any way. Innate property rights are all that's necessary for me to enforce them myself.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Actually, YOU need to read up on the philosophical roots of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since you seem to think they create ANYTHING for citizens.

All they do is tell the GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do. THAT IS ALL. It doesn't create rights, and it most certainly isn't needed to enforce rights in any way. Innate property rights are all that's necessary for me to enforce them myself.

Yeah you clearly do need to read some Hobbs and Locke. You just defined negative rights. What the government can't do. Hence why they are negative. What you are calling a "right" enforcing IP law is actually a violation of people's negative right to freely copy and pass along information.
---

ssjevot posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Actually, YOU need to read up on the philosophical roots of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since you seem to think they create ANYTHING for citizens.

All they do is tell the GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do. THAT IS ALL. It doesn't create rights, and it most certainly isn't needed to enforce rights in any way. Innate property rights are all that's necessary for me to enforce them myself.

Yeah you clearly do need to read some Hobbs and Locke. You just defined negative rights. What the government can't do. Hence why they are negative. What you are calling a "right" enforcing IP law is actually a violation of people's negative right to freely copy and pass along information.

Nobody has ever had that right. That's literally a right invented by pirates to try and excuse their piracy.
---

MarqueeSeries posted...

Because it makes nerds real salty

The ramen does that. Also it's your choice to taste us.

darkjedilink posted...

Nobody has ever had that right. That's literally a right invented by pirates to try and excuse their piracy.

Read Locke and Hobbs you do not understand what rights are, how they are derived, or how the Bill of Rights was intended to be interpreted (it was controversial to even have it because they rightfully thought people in the future might think rights not listed didn't exist).
---

Because people with money are playing modern games. When someone mostly plays games that are a decade or more old, you aren't exactly losing much.

"Those people living paycheck to paycheck and playing SNES roms is really hurting our bottom line! I don't think the Switch and 3DS are enough to keep us afloat."

Calwings posted...

This. I always gladly buy games that interest me if Nintendo gives me a method to buy them and support them, such as re-releasing them on the Virtual Console. Hell, I re-bought every single gen 1/2 Pokemon game when they re-released them on 3DS in the last couple of years. But if Nintendo doesn't offer a way to buy the game, then to Nintendo it doesn't matter whether I buy the old game at Vintage Stock or download a ROM of it, because Nintendo gains nothing and loses nothing either way. But if they make more old games available, then more people will buy them for the convenience of not having to search through pirate sites to find ROMs.

The problem there is that it DOES matter to Nintendo insofar as they want to deny access to old games. IP laws in countries like the US also demand that they seek to deny access. Otherwise, all of their old stuff can potentially get dumped into the public domain, necessarily precluding most options to monetize said stuff in the future. It doesn't matter that, realistically speaking, Nintendo has ZERO de facto interest in making the old stuff available since the profit margins aren't high enough.

So it really comes down to how much leverage you're willing to give companies to restrict access to content that is no longer being actively used for monetary gain, both in terms of breadth and duration.
---

ssjevot posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Nobody has ever had that right. That's literally a right invented by pirates to try and excuse their piracy.

Read Locke and Hobbs you do not understand what rights are, how they are derived, or how the Bill of Rights was intended to be interpreted (it was controversial to even have it because they rightfully thought people in the future might think rights not listed didn't exist).

Thank you for schooling him. The guy claims to be a libertarian and didn't like me telling him that he's not even close. Looks like it's because he has no clue about political philosophy and civics at all.
---

Nintendo isn't going to get money anyways if people buy old use games so it doesnt really make a difference if people pirate it versus buying it used. That said idgaf. it's always been illegal never stopped anyone before and it wont now
---

REMercsChamp posted...

Go ahead guys

Nintendo has the right to remove their rom games from the internet, but at the same time Nintendo has the right to make those games available for purchase.

Nintendo should focus making those games available so we can purchase them legally somehow easily, instead of Nintendo closing down rom website.

Games bought on the Wii U and 3DS digitally cant be played on the Switch including VC games.

Edit some games doesnt get localized so fans needs to do fans translation so we can understand.
---

Kineth posted...

ssjevot posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Nobody has ever had that right. That's literally a right invented by pirates to try and excuse their piracy.

Read Locke and Hobbs you do not understand what rights are, how they are derived, or how the Bill of Rights was intended to be interpreted (it was controversial to even have it because they rightfully thought people in the future might think rights not listed didn't exist).

Thank you for schooling him. The guy claims to be a libertarian and didn't like me telling him that he's not even close. Looks like it's because he has no clue about political philosophy and civics at all.

Wait this guy is a libertarian defending IP? Are you serious?
---