Like it or not apparently Switch piracy is a thing so this doesn't really change much for their current situation. But it does give people who want to do things the right way an avenue to do so.
I kind of think of it like high end CAD software and such that ships a physical dongle in order to use the software--Nintendo can sell hardware to help ensure it's legitimate use of their emulation software.
That’s not how Nintendo would view it though. The GP is absolutely correct that this would be seen as inviting people to leave Nintendos ecosystem. The only way this would work for Nintendo Would be if the “dongle” cost as much as a Switch, but then who’d want to pay that much for an emulator?
It’s also worth noting that Nintendo don’t have an issue with emulation per se, several of their commercial products are based on emulation. But I’m every instance where they support emulation it has been looked into their hardware ecosystem and the “emulation” word is never spoken publicly.
It changes the situation deeply. Switch piracy is not easy. You need to get an emulator, get a key dump for a Switch, torrent the game, setup everything. For a console you need physical modification or some tinkering shorting pins if you have a first gen console.
That’s a high bar to cross for Nintendo main market which remains families. Plus at this point the Switch is mostly a money printing machine between the old hardware and the store.
That’s not at all equivalent to just plugging a box sold by Nintendo however which was the point I was making. Pirating is an involved process. The fact it exists doesn’t at all make a business case as the parent comment was implying especially considering that PC gaming is already a niche market.
It is really not that much of an involved process. Reading a wiki page and downloading a few files from the first hit of a Google result is probably similar effort to setting up whatever potential product you have in mind.
> Yes exactly, this idea that piracy is lost sales has always been rubbish
That's beside the point. What matters is that Nintendo believes that piracy must be opposed at all costs. It's not about sales, it's not about money, it's not about logic, I don't think it's even about the actual law. It's about attacking piracy, as an end unto itself.
> Businesses don't attack piracy because of law but because of losses.
> Besides,as another post mentions, Switch piracy is probably very limited.
Switch piracy is very limited, but they pursue it aggressively because of the losses it causes them? Besides, that's already bunk; every time someone actually puts together a study it turns out that piracy is good for sales.
> And after all, even if they don't do it for the law, they can do it thanks to the law. It's their right
Well no; when I say that I don't think it's even about the law, I meant that their idea of what is and isn't okay seems to be more aggressive than the actual law. Contrast:
> Yes. Game copiers enable users to illegally copy video game software onto floppy disks, writeable compact disks or the hard drive of a personal computer. They enable the user to make, play and distribute illegal copies of video game software which violates Nintendo's copyrights and trademarks. These devices also allow for the uploading and downloading of ROMs to and from the Internet. Based upon the functions of these devices, they are illegal.
> 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs55
> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
[...]
> (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Now I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I struggle to read that as anything but Nintendo very confidently refusing to consider that a person could copy a game for any reason other than illegal piracy, while the actual law appears to allow for backups. Further up the same page they likewise are overwhelmingly confident that emulators only exist for illegal purposes, because nobody could ever want to play a legitimately-purchased game on anything except for original hardware.
> Switch piracy is very limited, but they pursue it aggressively because of the losses it causes them? Besides, that's already bunk; every time someone actually puts together a study it turns out that piracy is good for sales.
They don't lose much because some difficulty is maintained by them pursuing it aggressively.
Once piracy become as easy or easier as buying the games, yes it becomes a problem for them.
The same way Napster became a problem at some point for the music industry. Before Napster, getting music for free was about copy cds or cassette tapes from friends or library, a rather slow and limited process, or wait for the tunes to pass in the radio and hit the record button quickly to record it in a cassette at a lower quality than CD. And you didn't have the full deal (with cover and lyrics and stuffs that mattered at the time). When it became easier to just look for music in Napster's builtin search engine and start playing it even before the tune was downloaded completely it became a huge problem as it was a much seamless process than both the original illegal and the legal way which involved either to go to a store and hope the right disc was available or go to one of the very few music online music shop available at the time, enter your credit card details (something very few people were still comfortable with) and wait for the disc to be delivered. I think there were already a few digital marketplace available but you usually had to wait for the full download to be completed, the UI wasn't as easy and you couldn't just browse another user shared library to discover new stuff and get suggestions.
Sure piracy isn't necessarily a lost sale, but would there be more sales if people could not pirate the game, as with say a ps5 game? Especially in the case of rather widespread piracy in the weeks preceding release where even normal platform users may pirate because it's the only way to play. To what degree I couldn't tell you, it's most certainly not a 1 to 1 like the companies would like to argue, but there's almost certainly at least some amount of loss.
this doesn't make sense. take it to it's logical conclusion and say there's a site that allows anyone to pirate with minimal friction with one click. Still think piracy isn't lost sales?
The dongles for high end CAD software don't work either. Iranian, Russian, and Chinese pirates are very very good at cracking them (and some even provide support contracts and bugfixes). It's an interesting side effect of sanctions. If you get a proxy in Iran, you can find cracks and even cracked updates and custom bugfixes of basically any CAD software you want.
They are successfully competing with piracy, but not by being lower friction but by being more reliable and trustworthy.
Nintendo are highly focussed on a market where the person making the buying decision isn't the person playing the game.
Buy your 11-year-old son a Switch for Xmas and you know that a) it will work out of the box b) there will be a several family-friendly games with name recognition for any child that age (Mario, Pokemon, Zelda) and c) no one in his class will have a more expensive version or one that works better.
Contrast this with trying to get something to work on a PC with a 'switch emulator dongle'. You have to plug it in yourself, you will end up spending more than you planned in the computer store because each component comes with sucker upgrades, and game choices will be much wider and trickier. Then the game which looks great on your son's friend's machine will play like sh*t and you'll feel guilty for having cheaped out, without necessarily knowing what the operative constraint is.
What you call 'control freak' is just the culture of a company focussed on creating a curated experience which is a combination of software, hardware and user experience. Anything not fitting in that vision diminishes that experience and they will do anything to prevent that. Of course, they also like to get paid for their work ;)
Sorry but I think this is exaggerated. For Zelda BotW there was sometimes a low framerate when playing on second screen with 1080p in a very limited amount of regular game situations - and it was still okay.
I really think Nintendo's games are a curated experience compared to everything else I know and have played with maybe very very few exceptions.
It's not in my opinion though. I have a Gaming PC and a Switch. My gaming PC has a 6900XT and so I expect to be playing every game at 1440p @ 60FPS at a bear minimum - some games come out and surprisingly have trouble with that.
The Switch is old hardware that was under-powered on release, therefore, I expect that I'm not going to be getting 60FPS.
Basically, it's down to expectations. The Switch is absolutely great at what it does, and I appreciate it for that reason alone. My expectations are greatly different compared to a gaming PC/PS5/etc.
My biggest gripes with Nintendo is the god awful way they handle people using their IP to make YouTube videos, etc.
> My gaming PC has a 6900XT and so I expect to be playing every game at 1440p @ 60FPS at a bear minimum - some games come out and surprisingly have trouble with that.
You can't even compare an open market in which small teams have to cope with the myriad of possible configurations, ofthen lacking the technical skills for optimizing their software down to the bit with the supposedly top product of a trillion dollar company writing software for their own devices - and failing to make it decent.
Also Nintendo's whole philosophy is all about doing more with less. They make money on every device by not putting out overly engineered / performant systems. So they have always been lagging in terms of cutting edge hardware, but they make up for it by focusing on joyful content.
I wouldn't say that's always been the case. Both the N64 and Gamecube featured relatively cutting edge tech during their time. Of course, those two are their weakest selling home consoles, so they've definitely shifted their strategy afterwards.
But for two generations, they did try and keep up with their contemporaries.
Heads up, there was an issue a couple of months back of Wii U NANDs corrupting after being unused for a few years. Might be worth turning it on and off
It was phenomenally bad marketing, at least how I recall it.
As a huge Nintendo fan who loved his GameCube and Wii and didn't really care that it was just my 'nintendo machine', because I had an Xbox and a pc alongside it.
Somehow I completely missed the WiiU and always assumed it was a peripheral for console that I was already a bit meh about. it fit right in with their other 'accessories' that I never cared about.
Eventually I bought one with a whole bunch of games second-hand...
Switch has sold 120 million units, it has to date outsold the ps5 and then lapped it 3 more times. Oddly, BOTW has only sold 30 million copies.
Like, what did the other 90 million people buy a Switch for? There's nothing else on the console that's worth the trouble, at least up until a few hours ago.
Super Mario Odyssey? Super Mario Maker 2? Super Mario 3D World? Super Mario Party? Smash Bros? Super Mario Kart? (You know there’s this huge Mario movie that made a billion…) Bayonetta? Metroid Dread? Metroid Prime?
My sister in law got a switch just to play animal crossing. There are several other titles out there that people will buy the switch just to play that one title. And the switch (especially the switch lite) is cheap enough for people to do it.
They made some stupid decisions back then. N64 was cartridge based and didn't play CDs like its competitors.
The PS2 was the cheapest DVD player that also could play games, but GC could not play DVDs - its games were released on weird mini-DVDs that could store only ~1.4 GB.
There is a reason why Hollywood doesn't put technical people in charge of it's films.
A successful film director needs to prove their ability to deliver powerful experiences on next-to- no budget at all before anyone puts them in charge of a $150 million dollar blockbuster.
