Topic: Boredom and Nintendo

[Adrock]

You and your boyfriends first made the claim that piracy hurts game sales before me.

Your logical fallacy is [ad hominem].

BTW, this started because you first claimed that piracy is morally correct. There's no point in discussing this further when you've Neo-dodged every criticism about the original claim.

Stealing implies someone had something taken from them. Piracy never takes the original game away from the dev, it just makes a copy. You're talking about nintendo like they're a starving indie company when they're the richest company in japan period.

Your logical fallacy is [strawman].

They have sold over 140 million switches, made over 1 billion dollars of profit on software sales and the switch is on pace to become the best selling console of all time. I think they won't lose sleep if a few million pirate their games, especially as the switch has been pirated day one.

Your logical fallacy is [special pleading].

Won't lose sleep? Nintendo literally sued Yuzu into oblivion because of people pirating Tears of the Kingdom.

If piracy hurt sales as you pretend it does, the switch would of failed.

Your (informal) logical fallacy is [false dilemma].

At least someone here comprehends how piracy preserves old games. But tbh yall sound like boomers who bought the "you wouldn't steal a car" anti piracy campaigns, and can't move on and accept that publishers do a piss poor job of providing access to their legacy titles.

LOL, no one was saying otherwise (though there's more nuance than you presented). The difference is you're the only one claiming its "morally correct".

[Dinar87]

You and your boyfriends first made the claim that piracy hurts game sales before me.

Your logical fallacy is [ad hominem].

BTW, this started because you first claimed that piracy is morally correct. There's no point in discussing this further when you've Neo-dodged every criticism about the original claim.

Stealing implies someone had something taken from them. Piracy never takes the original game away from the dev, it just makes a copy. You're talking about nintendo like they're a starving indie company when they're the richest company in japan period.

Your logical fallacy is [strawman].

They have sold over 140 million switches, made over 1 billion dollars of profit on software sales and the switch is on pace to become the best selling console of all time. I think they won't lose sleep if a few million pirate their games, especially as the switch has been pirated day one.

Your logical fallacy is [special pleading].

Won't lose sleep? Nintendo literally sued Yuzu into oblivion because of people pirating Tears of the Kingdom.

If piracy hurt sales as you pretend it does, the switch would of failed.

Your (informal) logical fallacy is [false dilemma].

At least someone here comprehends how piracy preserves old games. But tbh yall sound like boomers who bought the "you wouldn't steal a car" anti piracy campaigns, and can't move on and accept that publishers do a piss poor job of providing access to their legacy titles.

LOL, no one was saying otherwise (though there's more nuance than you presented). The difference is you're the only one claiming its "morally correct".

Piracy is morally correct. 

You guys can't claim strawman when earlier one of you said piracy was stealing.

Yeah they sued yuzu, it was their choice to do so. Nothing would of happened to them had they not done so. They created the problem.

It's not a false dilemma as you all have clearly stated piracy hurts game sales. At the very least smaller nintendo games like metroid dread and pikmin 4 should've flopped if piracy was truly an issue. If it truly is a "false dilemma" to counter your claim of piracy being stealing and hurting nintendo's business, what other conclusions can there be when the switch has been so financially successful? It is black and white. You are wrong and I am right.

It's not morally correct to use piracy to preserve old games, or new ones? There's no "nuance" it is morally correct to pirate, at least when it comes to aaa games.

https://youtu.be/_Fu4pE46-zM

Piracy is a blanket term that encompasses theft. Emulation is a more specific one that applies to all of the points that you’ve raised. Emulation implies ownership, and once something is owned, it is the right of the owner to distribute/emulate it at their discretion.

When one can no longer buy something, they have reason to emulate.

Also, resorting to homophobic name calling as a means of positing the superiority of your perspective is petty and immature. Do better. You came here for reasonable discussion because you felt shut out of other communities.

Emulating old games almost always requires illegally downloading roms aka piracy. 99% of people emulating aren't paying hundreds of dollars to buy a legitimate copy of the game to then dump.

[broodwars]

I don't think it's "morally right" to pirate brand new games that are in no danger at the moment of becoming unavailable or inaccessible. I'm absolutely onboard with preserving games from previous generations however you can, but to me the line stops there.

[Evan_B]

I think we’ve come to an impasse where your definition of piracy and emulation are dissimilar to my own. I see emulation as an act of preservation, while piracy is an act of theft. The thing is already preserved, you are stealing it because you don’t want to access its method of preservation.

Where this becomes morally gray- which, despite the tendency to shout “**** nuance,” is a thing that does exist- is how that preservation is taking place. I suppose it has something to do with ownership, as well. I know disclaimers on software exist, and that they state that illegal copying and redistribution of a product can land you in legal trouble. The law of man is a self-fabricated one, however, and I think it would be better to have a discussion about what constitutes illegal redistribution, because no, I don’t think an individual distributing game that is no longer accessible on the Nintendo 3DS eShop for the purposes of emulation is piracy because you can no longer reasonably purchase that software, but yes, an individual distributing Tears of the Kingdom a week after it was released for the purposes of emulation is piracy.

If you have some counter to this mentality, I’d genuinely be curious about your reasoning, because I’m open to a discussion and I am not going to insult you for disagreeing with my interpretation.

[pokepal148]

The **** happened here?

[broodwars]

The **** happened here?

People were bored talking about Nintendo. It's on-topic. 

[pokepal148]

I won't comment on my activities with older systems where your only other option is the used market but pirating for a modern system like the Switch is a line I would never cross.

[Dinar87]

The **** happened here?

People were bored talking about Nintendo. It's on-topic. 

We (really just I) have no games to play so I'm blasting off in the forums.

[Dinar87]

I don't think it's "morally right" to pirate brand new games that are in no danger at the moment of becoming unavailable or inaccessible. I'm absolutely onboard with preserving games from previous generations however you can, but to me the line stops there.

I think for indie devs, it's morally wrong to pirate, but AAA devs it's usually ok. Nintendo's developers may be the best in gaming, but Nintendo the company are assholes a lot of the time. Despite my views, I buy AAA games instead of pirating because I want to support them. But I know that if the company can get away with screwing me as a customer, they will do that. Nintendo is not my friend.

Basically I'll support the games and buy them, but I will always keep my options open. You never know when online games will get delisted.

[Dinar87]

I think we’ve come to an impasse where your definition of piracy and emulation are dissimilar to my own. I see emulation as an act of preservation, while piracy is an act of theft. The thing is already preserved, you are stealing it because you don’t want to access its method of preservation.

Where this becomes morally gray- which, despite the tendency to shout “**** nuance,” is a thing that does exist- is how that preservation is taking place. I suppose it has something to do with ownership, as well. I know disclaimers on software exist, and that they state that illegal copying and redistribution of a product can land you in legal trouble. The law of man is a self-fabricated one, however, and I think it would be better to have a discussion about what constitutes illegal redistribution, because no, I don’t think an individual distributing game that is no longer accessible on the Nintendo 3DS eShop for the purposes of emulation is piracy because you can no longer reasonably purchase that software, but yes, an individual distributing Tears of the Kingdom a week after it was released for the purposes of emulation is piracy.

If you have some counter to this mentality, I’d genuinely be curious about your reasoning, because I’m open to a discussion and I am not going to insult you for disagreeing with my interpretation.

I guess my views are (for AAA piracy) pirating and emulating old games you cannot buy (subscriptions don't count, because I cannot own my purchases, they will be taken away as soon as I stop paying) is morally ok. Pirating current gen AAA games (or old games made accessible for a fair price aka not full price for a port and not a remake) is not morally clear, but I'm unsympathetic to nintendo and big companies generally.

The World Economic Forum wants us all to "own nothing, rent everything, no privacy, eat bugs, live in pods". Combine this with ai and robots probably replacing almost all human jobs in the next few decades, and I don't have a lot of sympathy left for big companies.

[ThePerm]

You and your boyfriends first made the claim that piracy hurts game sales before me.

Your logical fallacy is [ad hominem].

BTW, this started because you first claimed that piracy is morally correct. There's no point in discussing this further when you've Neo-dodged every criticism about the original claim.

Stealing implies someone had something taken from them. Piracy never takes the original game away from the dev, it just makes a copy. You're talking about nintendo like they're a starving indie company when they're the richest company in japan period.

Your logical fallacy is [strawman].

They have sold over 140 million switches, made over 1 billion dollars of profit on software sales and the switch is on pace to become the best selling console of all time. I think they won't lose sleep if a few million pirate their games, especially as the switch has been pirated day one.

Your logical fallacy is [special pleading].

Won't lose sleep? Nintendo literally sued Yuzu into oblivion because of people pirating Tears of the Kingdom.

If piracy hurt sales as you pretend it does, the switch would of failed.

Your (informal) logical fallacy is [false dilemma].

At least someone here comprehends how piracy preserves old games. But tbh yall sound like boomers who bought the "you wouldn't steal a car" anti piracy campaigns, and can't move on and accept that publishers do a piss poor job of providing access to their legacy titles.

LOL, no one was saying otherwise (though there's more nuance than you presented). The difference is you're the only one claiming its "morally correct".

this was the only joy I got out of my logic class.