Poll of the Day > Nintendo wins $12m lawsuit against ROM-hosting sites, LoveRETRO and LoveROMS.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Revelation34 posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

You're making an absolute statement of value, not a relative one. Preferring physical does nothing to explain how being digital reduces its value below $10.

We already went over that.

Then I'm sure you'll be easily able to provide me with a quote of the exchange where you believe that happened.

_AdjI_ posted...

Then I'm sure you'll be easily able to provide me with a quote of the exchange where you believe that happened.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/77198937/912425601
---

You have to buy official ROM boxes like the NES and SNES Classics

FinalFantasyVII posted...

You have to buy official ROM boxes like the NES and SNES Classics

They don't have every game. I don't even think the eShop does.
---

You can hack them

They're pretty fuckin sweet

Revelation34 posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

Then I'm sure you'll be easily able to provide me with a quote of the exchange where you believe that happened.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/77198937/912425601

Ah yes, and then you brought out the stunning example of flawless logic that was "being old diminishes its value below $10 because it's old." Well, except for the part where that logic was hilariously circular and therefore meaningless, and that still doesn't address the question of why being digital reduces its value below $10. How embarrassing this must be for you.

Revelation34 posted...

Lol going after ROM sites. They should be going after sites that have newer games.

takes away from their classic consoles/virtual store/paid online games
---

GanglyKhan posted...

The effort it takes to upload the entire first party SNES library is next to none.

well no, emulation is not a perfect system and there's often issues of IPs lapsing or transferring, companies going under, etc

not that i think this is cool either but there's probably a reason for a lot the games you can't just buy
---

Adjl, there comes a point where it stops being the good fight.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

Revelation34 posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

And again, we get back to the part where you try to suggest that a quality, 30-hour RPG isn't worth $10.

It isn't when it's that old.

Does being old make it less enjoyable? Or shorter? Or legitimately available elsewhere for a lower price?

It fucking does lol.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

Ah yes, and then you brought out the stunning example of flawless logic that was "being old diminishes its value below $10 because it's old." Well, except for the part where that logic was hilariously circular and therefore meaningless, and that still doesn't address the question of why being digital reduces its value below $10. How embarrassing this must be for you.

Citation needed.
---

keyblader1985 posted...

Adjl, there comes a point where it stops being the good fight.

*Shrug*

Viking_Mudcrap posted...

It f***ing does lol.

The game changed with age?

Revelation34 posted...

Citation needed.

What, that circular arguments are semantically null? If you can find a meaningful argument in "being old means it's worth less than $10 because it's old," I'm all ears, but I feel that's pretty self-evident in the very nature of circular arguments.

_AdjI_ posted...

The game changed with age?

It's value does.

That and a games quality can drop relative to newer, better games that release later.
---

ninja_lootz posted...

It's value does.

And why should that happen? Specifically to the extent Rev is insisting it should?

ninja_lootz posted...

That and a games quality can drop relative to newer, better games that release later.

It can indeed, and there are a good many games that haven't aged well enough to be worth paying much for. That's very much on a game-by-game basis, though. If he doesn't feel that Earthbound has aged well enough to be worth paying much for, he's perfectly entitled to that opinion, and could voice it.
---

should the iphone 2 be sold now at the same price as when it came out? and adjust for inflation?

the value of things does change, regardless of if the actual product itself is the same.

Fam_Fam posted...

should the iphone 2 be sold now at the same price as when it came out? and adjust for inflation?

the value of things does change, regardless of if the actual product itself is the same.

Value is decided by demand though, obviously no one wants an iphone 2 because it is basically a worthless paperweight at this point. A video game can still have value, even 30 - 40 years after it's released. Whether you think it does or not is an opinion, one that you clearly don't share with a lot of people considering the popularity of things like the e-shop and the NES/SNES classic.
---

if a game is no longer being sold then nobody is making money from it.
---

That much? That sucks. Welp, yous plays the game, yous takes ya chances.
---

Kinda sitting with Adjl on this. Those really aren't strong arguments. While it's something of an industry practice to set the prices around a certain point, the ultimate test is really what people are willing to pay. If they couldn't rack up customers at that price point, you better believe it would drop.

And while nothing is being done with some of the older titles, you need to enforce copyrights to maintain them. They can't let it slide without things falling into the public domain.
---

Fam_Fam posted...

should the iphone 2 be sold now at the same price as when it came out? and adjust for inflation?

the value of things does change, regardless of if the actual product itself is the same.

There's no reason they couldn't try. Would it sell? Almost certainly not, given that better things are available for similar or lower prices, based on the cost of materials and the demand for higher-powered devices. But they would absolutely have the right to try. That said, hardware isn't necessarily the best comparison, since games really don't become obsolete the way hardware does (and those that are succeeded by something that's objectively better in every conceivable way tend to either stop being sold or, indeed, become much cheaper than the successor).

I'm also not talking about keeping it at full, inflation-adjusted price. You'd be hard-pressed to sell any game for over $100 these days (without marketing tactics like carving chunks out to sell as an ultimate edition), let alone a 25-year-old one with graphics that were dated when it came out. I'm talking specifically about the notion that it can't possibly be worth 10 whole dollars, which really isn't much to pay for a game you can reasonably expect to enjoy just as much as anything else on the market. Does that mean you should pay $10 for Earthbound instead of paying less for a comparable game? That's your choice. But insisting that it must be priced below $10 in order to be reasonable is just acting as though you're entitled to have Nintendo's property for your chosen price instead of theirs, and that's not at all reasonable.

Zeus posted...

While it's something of an industry practice to set the prices around a certain point, the ultimate test is really what people are willing to pay.

Exactly. Nintendo is entitled to price their games however they want, and people are entitled to not buy them if they feel the price is unreasonable. People are not, however, entitled to demand that Nintendo sell their games for less than they want to. They're also not entitled to pirate games whose price they feel is unreasonable. You want it, you pay Nintendo's price. You don't want it, you don't get it. It's that simple.

Zeus posted...

If they couldn't rack up customers at that price point, you better believe it would drop.

To be fair, it is Nintendo we're talking about. They're a little out of touch with their customer base, such that I wouldn't necessarily expect them to do that.

_AdjI_ posted...

But insisting that it must be priced below $10 in order to be reasonable is just acting as though you're entitled to have Nintendo's property for your chosen price instead of theirs, and that's not at all reasonable.

Citation needed.

_AdjI_ posted...

You want it, you pay Nintendo's price. You don't want it, you don't get it. It's that simple.

People can do whatever they want to. Doesn't mean it's justified, but they can still do it.
---

Am.. am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in that post?
---

It's a bad sign, but thankfully there are many, many sites left up, as well as torrents.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Citation needed.

You need a citation to convince you that it's unreasonable to demand that somebody sell their product for less than they're willing to pay because you feel entitled to it for a lower price? Let's see what I can do...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Revelation34 posted...

People can do whatever they want to. Doesn't mean it's justified, but they can still do it.

Well, no. They can't. That's sort of exactly why laws exist, and exactly why this lawsuit has succeeded.

People who know what they're doing have been torrenting romsets for years at this point, I don't really care and will continue to pirate the shit out of old ass nintendo games
---

Shadowplay posted...

Thankfully, Nintendo is such a backwards, half-assed company run by nitwits that they couldn't even go after a ROM site that people have actually heard of.

They shut down the best one though.
---

Zeus posted...

If they couldn't rack up customers at that price point, you better believe it would drop.

That's not how Nintendo operates. If they can't rack up customers at a price point, they'll just assume nobody wants it and stop offering it.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

Well, no. They can't. That's sort of exactly why laws exist, and exactly why this lawsuit has succeeded.

So you mean to tell me it is physically impossible to pirate something?

Zareth posted...

They shut down the best one though.

Doesn't look like it. Both of the ones I used many years ago are still up.
---

Revelation34 posted...

So you mean to tell me it is physically impossible to pirate something?

Do you really think that's what I'm telling you?

_AdjI_ posted...

Nintendo is entitled to price their games however they want, and people are entitled to not buy them if they feel the price is unreasonable. People are not, however, entitled to demand that Nintendo sell their games for less than they want to.

Not buying something because you feel the price is unreasonable is demanding the price to be lowered. Since your reasoning for not buying it is because you feel the price is too high.

_AdjI_ posted...

They're also not entitled to pirate games whose price they feel is unreasonable. You want it, you pay Nintendo's price. You don't want it, you don't get it. It's that simple.

I mean....you can say this all you want. But no matter what companies do, if it's digital, people will find a way to get it for free if the company is selling it for too much, or if they just want to for whatever other reasons. Even with all the laws saying you can't do that.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

Do you really think that's what I'm telling you?

It must be since people can clearly do what they want. Just because something is illegal does not mean they wouldn't pirate.
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

I mean....you can say this all you want. But no matter what companies do, if it's digital, people will find a way to get it for free if the company is selling it for too much, or if they just want to for whatever other reasons. Even with all the laws saying you can't do that.

Sure, they can. They just can't pretend to have any sort of moral high ground over Nintendo when Nintendo decides to crack down on people who distribute their property. I'm fine with people pirating, so long as they admit that they're just being entitled and cheap when they do so (unless it's a game that's otherwise only available second-hand, since then there's no way to pay the publisher for them). Anything less is just dishonest.

Revelation34 posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

Do you really think that's what I'm telling you?

It must be since people can clearly do what they want. Just because something is illegal does not mean they wouldn't pirate.

*Poe's law intensifies*

_AdjI_ posted...

*Poe's law intensifies*

Nope.
---

Revelation34 posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

*Poe's law intensifies*

Nope.

Yep.

planetemu too
---

_AdjI_ posted...

Yep.

Nope.
---

What if I owned the game when it was new? I should still be able to own it.

Or what if they want me to rebuy the game because the new system isnt compatible. I already bought the software so I own it and can do what I want with it.
---

DrPrimemaster posted...

What if I owned the game when it was new? I should still be able to own it.

Or what if they want me to rebuy the game because the new system isnt compatible. I already bought the software so I own it and can do what I want with it.

Yeah I agree with this. If you can prove you own an original copy of something then you should get something like a digital version as long as it's just like Earthbound with no changes to the game.
---

Gotta lol at the people whining about Nintendo protecting their property. Seriously, people, here's a pile of wood, now build a bridge and get over yourselves, FFS.
---

TyVulpine posted...

Gotta lol at the people whining about Nintendo protecting their property. Seriously, people, here's a pile of wood, now build a bridge and get over yourselves, FFS.

They should have gone after them years ago if they want to be taken seriously. They're really only going after them because of the eShop.
---

Revelation34 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

Gotta lol at the people whining about Nintendo protecting their property. Seriously, people, here's a pile of wood, now build a bridge and get over yourselves, FFS.

They should have gone after them years ago if they want to be taken seriously. They're really only going after them because of the eShop.

Hence protecting their property and money. Same thing any business would do to avoid losing money or charging more to make up the lost profits.
---

TyVulpine posted...

Hence protecting their property and money. Same thing any business would do to avoid losing money or charging more to make up the lost profits.

Nobody is taking them serious though.
---

Revelation34 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

Hence protecting their property and money. Same thing any business would do to avoid losing money or charging more to make up the lost profits.

Nobody is taking them serious though.

Anyone with a ounce of sense does, i.e. those that aren't edgy anti-Nintendo, Microsoft/Playstation fanboys (like most people on here)
---

TyVulpine posted...

Anyone with a ounce of sense does, i.e. those that aren't edgy anti-Nintendo, Microsoft/Playstation fanboys (like most people on here)

https://imgur.com/gallery/PqUh4
---

Revelation34 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

Anyone with a ounce of sense does, i.e. those that aren't edgy anti-Nintendo, Microsoft/Playstation fanboys (like most people on here)

https://imgur.com/gallery/PqUh4

Try harder. Seriously, the only people that whine about the whole thing are those that believe Nintendo should give away their old games for free. Something no business would ever do, give away old stuff for free.
The whole point of a business is to make money. If you're not in business to make money, then you have no business being in business.
---

TyVulpine posted...

Try harder. Seriously, the only people that whine about the whole thing are those that believe Nintendo should give away their old games for free. Something no business would ever do, give away old stuff for free.
The whole point of a business is to make money. If you're not in business to make money, then you have no business being in business.

Nope you missed the point. Nobody takes them seriously because they never went after ROM sites when they were so rampant in the past. They even went after sites nobody has heard of instead of bigger ones.
---

Revelation34 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

Try harder. Seriously, the only people that whine about the whole thing are those that believe Nintendo should give away their old games for free. Something no business would ever do, give away old stuff for free.
The whole point of a business is to make money. If you're not in business to make money, then you have no business being in business.

Nope you missed the point. Nobody takes them seriously because they never went after ROM sites when they were so rampant in the past. They even went after sites nobody has heard of instead of bigger ones.

"Don't take them seriously" "Even went after sites". Nice contradiction there. Gee, if you don't want to pay the fine or do the time, don't do the crime. Is that really that hard a concept to understand? Apparently so for you, so that imgur link really applies more for you.
---

TyVulpine posted...

"Don't take them seriously" "Even went after sites". Nice contradiction there. Gee, if you don't want to pay the fine or do the time, don't do the crime. Is that really that hard a concept to understand? Apparently so for you, so that imgur link really applies more for you.

Oh the irony.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Nope you missed the point. Nobody takes them seriously because they never went after ROM sites when they were so rampant in the past. They even went after sites nobody has heard of instead of bigger ones.

Nintendo has literally been doing this shit since sites hosting ROMs existed. Emuparadise, which has since taken down all download links to ROMs and ISOs, has been dealing with things like this since 2000. Various other sites would frequently take ROMs of Nintendo games down due to fear of litigation. Nintendo had either paid employees or scraping bots on P2P networks looking for people sharing Nintendo ROMs so they could threaten legal action.

LoveROMs was just Nintendo setting an example. They were an easy target for litigation so that Nintendo could send a message to all other sites hosting ROMs.
---

DrPrimemaster posted...

What if I owned the game when it was new? I should still be able to own it.

Making copies of what you own is fine. Distributing those copies is not. Expecting Nintendo to make those copies for you is not.

DrPrimemaster posted...

Or what if they want me to rebuy the game because the new system isnt compatible.

In that case, they're selling the compatibility with the new system.

Revelation34 posted...

Yeah I agree with this. If you can prove you own an original copy of something then you should get something like a digital version as long as it's just like Earthbound with no changes to the game.

Provided you supply it yourself, sure. Expecting Nintendo to provide you with a free ROM just because you bought the game once is, once again, hilariously entitled and unreasonable.

Revelation34 posted...

They're really only going after them because of the eShop.

They only sought to claim monetary damages once they started being able to make money off of the software that was being pirated again? Imagine that!
---