Nintendo To Take On Piracy In 3-D 249
crimeandpunishment writes "Nintendo says when its new handheld game device with 3-D technology comes out, it will have beefed-up anti-piracy measures. For obvious reasons, the company is keeping tight-lipped on the specifics. Nintendo President Satoru Iwata says they're not only concerned about software piracy, but also a growing tolerance for it. He said, 'We fear a kind of thinking is become widespread that paying for software is meaningless.'"
Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason it is so successful is that it does cater to everyone and not just a small group of gamers.
The DS (and all Gameboy portables) were always region free. That made it great for travel and if you just wanted games not sold in your country. Thanks to all the ungrateful cheap pricks who wouldn't buy games Nintendo is apparently now going to tighten up security on their portables and the tight-wads ruined it for everyone as usual.
Re:Nail on the head (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm kind of hesitant to reply. I see a kind of discrepancy, but I'm not quite sure how to explain it, or how to rectify it. So I'm just going to do my best to describe what I see.
As it stands, buying software is kind of like buying music. And neither is really anything like buying, for example, cake. While a lot of slashdotters support Software as a Service, very few, if any, would support Music as a Service. Why? We want to own media content, but we don't really care about owning software, just using it. But both are very similar. We can't ever actually own either. Other people own copyrights or patents on them. In both cases, when we "buy" the product, we're actually just buying a license to use that product. We don't own the product, we just have a license to use it under certain conditions. Same goes for games.
Now I've just described what IS the case, not what OUGHT to be the case. I don't know what the case ought to be. On the one hand, I hate not being able to copy my music across devices. I hate having to be connected to the internet to be able to play a certain game. On the other hand, people who create useful/entertaining/valuable things should be compensated for it, if they so wish.
SaaS solves the problem by giving control to the software publishers. The client only gets to use the software when he pays for it, and on the publisher's terms. Would the same model applied to music or games not work? Why wouldn't it work? Is it just a conceptual problem (i.e., we have this idea that we should "own" music or games that we pay for)? What if it was marketed appropriately (i.e., just honestly tell people that they're simply paying for a license to play the game or listen to music on the licenser's terms, instead of implying that paying for it = owning it), would that solve the problem?
Thinking about all of this is making my head hurt. I have no idea what the actual solution should be. There are arguments to be made on every side, and I'm not in a particularly good position to make any of those arguments. I just wanted to get the conversation started.
What are the benefits and drawbacks of SaaS? How would that be fundamentally different from MaaS or GaaS?
DSiware is a step in the right direction (Score:3, Interesting)
I stopped pirating PC games when Steam came out. The convenience of ownership outweighed the convenience of piracy.
I have a few pirated games on my DSi XL because I hate lugging cartridges around. I own several DSiware titles because shopping was convenient and I don't need cartridges. Beef up the DS's storage and make games intangible and they'll have sold me.
Re:Nail on the head (Score:3, Interesting)
Your post demonstrates why copyright needs to be abolished, it is nothing more then illegitimate monopoly.
PS3? (Score:3, Interesting)
The PS3 has done extremely well in the anti-piracy department. As have the newer versions of the PSP.
Of course, one could then make the argument that the PS3 is protected by an expensive media format, and both the PS3 and newer PSPs are protected by a lack of interest to hack them.
Re:Nail on the head (Score:2, Interesting)
Piracy of Nintendo products amounts to 1/10 of 1%. A website may broadcast success in homebrew operations but how many hits to that web site result into actually copying titles and comprimises to hardware measures?
0, 10, 5?
1 in 1,000,000 individuals possess the knowledge to mod a nintendo DS. 1 in 200,000,000 can possibly comprimise a nintendo Wii.
I'm sorry there's no way those figure are even close, that would imply that worldwide there are only 30-35 people capable of modding a Wii
Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, meaning it's not a very big deal.
10% is certainly money, but it's not the huge amounts being implied in various press releases. It's also an amount that can be easily made or lost through other decisions.
No company makes 100% of the money it could potentially make. Some potential customers don't know about the product, some are on the wrong platform, some are annoyed by DRM, some are unwilling to pay the price but would buy if it was cheaper, some pay but would be willing to pay more. You can't please absolutely everyone, or make everybody pay precisely the amount they're willing to pay, so you're always missing on some money you could possibly have if everything was ideal.
And according to their numbers, their time is much better spent on Linux and Mac support.
Don't think it's completely irrelevant. I follow the same logic when buying the games from any studio. DRM will ensure I will not buy it, and that's a guaranteed lost sale right there.
After getting burned, I got much more careful. So, for me personally:
If any of the above sneaks through because it wasn't properly disclosed before I bought it: I will call your tech support and complain for as long as possible, after that guaranteed no sale for anything else you make. You can bet I will make every effort possible to return it, as well.
Things that make it more likely I will buy your stuff:
Sure. And what about it?
Because it's not theft. It's copyright infringement. And unlike with theft, where something is permanently removed, in copyright infringement nothing disappears. The maker possibly fails to gain money, in some cases of it. But doesn't lose it.
First, there's no "IP". There is copyright, trademarks and patents, all of which work differently. In this case we're exclusively discussing copyright, so no need to muddle the issue.
Second, it's not theft but copyright infringement.
Third, where did you get that I'm advocating piracy?
I repeat: I just think it's not a very big deal. It may be illegal, but so is jaywalking. I think a disproportionate amount of time and resources are spent on trying to prevent it, which can be counterproductive when overdone, because it loses more than it gains back.
If somehow piracy could be entirely prevented, it'd gain mayb
Re:Nail on the head (Score:1, Interesting)
We can't ever actually own either. Other people own copyrights or patents on them. In both cases, when we "buy" the product, we're actually just buying a license to use that product. We don't own the product, we just have a license to use it under certain conditions.
No! No, no, no! Please, stop perpetrating this dangerous myth.
When you buy a CD, what you have bought is a physical object. The physical object is yours to do with as you see fit: you can give it away, destroy it, put it on your shelf, whatever.
The physical object also happens to contain music. You can listen to this music, and you do NOT need a license for this, and neither do you have one. Rather, putting the physical object - the CD - into a CD player and pressing "Play" is one of the things that you are naturally allowed to do with a physical object that you *OWN*.
There are a few restrictions now: a blacklist of things you are not allowed to do after all, if you will. These restrictions are codified in copyright law; for example, depending on your jurisdiction, you may not be able to make copies of your CD and give them away.
Copyright holders can grant you the right to do these things after all (this is what a license would do). Copyright holders can NOT take away rights that copyright law itself doesn't restrict without your consent.
In theory, copyright holders of course could enter a contract with you where you voluntarily sign away some rights. I'm not gonna ask "why would you do that"; instead, I'll point out that you DON'T. If you buy a CD, you do not have a contract with anyone except for the store that sold it to you, and that contract is a standard sales contract.