Good point. However, I love having all of my (legally purchased) NDS games on one cartridge oh so much. And then there's homebrew, which is a blast.

Err....why would Nintendo look evil for this?

Well made points, though I do disagree on the overall.

Something else that I'd like to point out:
By limiting R4 sales, Nintendo is actually cutting their DS *SYSTEM* sales.

As I said before, the economy is on a downturn, and when many people find out that they are paying $130 for a handheld system, and then another $30 a game, they say "pass". ESPECIALLY parents.

However, if you tell a parent that they can invest in a $80-100 product and have every game on the market available for their kid alongside that $130 product, they are MUCH more likely to buy it.

Let's be honest, Nintendo's highest markets are Japan & the USA. The USA's economy is slowly turning into the Great Depression Redux. It is getting to a point where we can no longer afford to maintain our luxuries like we once did. In the long run people, especially parents, are aiming for more bang for their buck and will ultimately try to get their children something that will entertain them for a long time (IE: keep the parents from having to buy new toys on a regular basis), but will also save them money.

But it's not the system sales that are really important to Nintendo. It's the game sales. Those $30-$40 purchases add up. Sure the initial $130 is a good start, but if (when) everyone in Japan has two DS Lites, they'll still make money from the games people buy. That's why they need to get rid of piracy.

Not that I think what Nintendo is doing is right, though.

How does the proposal in post #13 induce new games to be made? There's no incentive; no one will be PAYING for them. A system lives or dies by its games; what happens to one that has no new games *at all*?

Why would Nintendo resign itself to making money only from the initial unit? We don't think most of its DS money comes from the units, do we? Look up "captive pricing". It's not as insidious as it sounds; it refers to a company that makes the majority of its money off the complements to a basic unit instead of the unit itself (the disposable blades instead of the razor, say). Why throw away all the money to be made from those millions and millions of New Super Mario Bros. and Animal Crossing and Nintendogs and Pokemon and Brain Age and Mario Kart cards?

Why write off the enormous existing user base the DS has? They've bought their systems; if they're not buying games, how does Nintendo make money off them? What does Nintendo do, anyhow, when the DS reaches market saturation (which will be happen a heck of a lot more quickly with an entire-system-library-free deal)? What does it *sell*?

Guys, if you want to make a logical argument for a company to encourage piracy of its own goods (a, let us say, dubious prospect in the first place), you have to make it at least economically sound. I don't how we can all celebrate the gangbusters business copiously chronicled on this page that the DS has brought Nintendo and yet deem the company the Titanic, in need of serious course correction lest financial ruin come upon it, once its objects to deadbeats stealing its software.

Synonymous, you're WRONG. :)

Your argument is flawed.

Flawed Logic #1.

You are ASSUMING that pirates will buy the games if they couldn't pirate, which is simply wrong. There is NO WAY you can make that assumption, and without it, your whole argument is worthless.


Flawed Logic #2.

If people pirate games without buying the games, as you claim in your argument, then I submit that they are too cheap to buy games ... period. IF pirates buy some games anyway, they would probably buy the games irregardless.

Flawed Logic #3.

Matdredalia is NOT making a moral argument condoning pirating. Quite the opposite, she is making an economic argument. She's simply saying the costs (monetary & public relations) of fighting piracy outweights any potential benefit.

One well known organization has gone all out to fight piracy, but they have NOT PROVEN, ANY MEASURABLE SUCCESS from their efforts, which some would characterize as futile.

All Matdredalia is saying is that you preclude incremental income from the sales of DS Lites. This is may or may not be true, but IF pirates are NOT going to buy games (as your argument claims), then it is true. And Nintendo WOULD lose out on that income.

Now you argue that Nintendo make most of it's income on game sales, which is undeniable, and NOT challenged by Matdredalia. However, your argument only works IF pirates would buy the games if they couldn't pirate.

There is NO WAY you can make this assumption, since there is always the the chance that if pirates couldn't pirate games, they wouldn't buy ANY games at all ... PERIOD.

And people who pirate AND buy games would buy the games IRREGARDLESS.

I normally just read the comments, and just lurk, but Synonymous's hollow attack on Matdredalia, followed by a comment about making LOGICAL arguments ... well I had to post something. :)

In summary, the FALSE ARGUMENT of loss sales due to piracy has been made many times, but NEVER PROVEN. It's a ploy used in court system by people who are desperate (business model is failing).

Businesses are driven by profits, if it really wasn't a waste of time to spend alot of resources on fighting piracy, then everyone would be doing it. Nintendo's move on the R4 is understandable and does not cost the company much money, effort, or good-will, so it's not hard to swallow for Nintendo.

I would much rather Nintendo spend it's money putting Datel out of business, as I see Action Replay as the bane of the Nintendo Wifi, so it really affects me. Pirating doesn't affect me and my 30 + DS games, game publishers make enough money even with piracy on the DS. Why else do you think there have been FOUR Ace Attorney games from CAPCOM (the last two within about 6 months from each other)? Because good games sell. Hell, even bad games sell, why else do you think there are so many Imagine Catz, Horsez, etc. LOL.

Peace.

#1: So because pirates won't buy *every* title, Nintendo should not only allow but encourage them not to pay for *any* title. Brilliant.

#2: Wrong. Name the favorite game you bought at retail. It was obviously worth, let's say, $35 to you, right? Free's less than $35 - so the game is still worth the "purchase price" of pirate downloading. It's human nature - yeah, we'd pay full price for Brawl or EBA - but if we could get it for free, well, *gee*.

In economics, this is called the free rider problem - consumers purposely misrepresent and undervalue what a good or service is worth to them if the possibility of doing so will enable them to get it for little or no personal cost. (The Wikipedia uses the example of a garbage-collection system that would cost everyone in the neighborhood $100. Even if the neighbors *are* willing to pay $100 for the system, if there's the possibility the city would pick up the tab if there were no neighborhood financing for it, of *course* the neighbors would claim that they couldn't, wouldn't pay that $100. "Oh, that new garbage system isn't worth $100 to *me* (so, gee, I hope the city pays for it)." "Oh, we pirates wouldn't pay the purchase price of ANY game (so, gee, I hope Nintendo lays off us and continues to allow us to get free stuff)."

This isn't rocket science. If the free rider problem didn't exist, the record industry wouldn't be slumping due to downloads (because if pirates would *never* pay for the songs or albums they're downloading, then why are sales of those songs and albums dropping?). We wouldn't have a piracy problem *anywhere* to begin with.

#3: I have no idea what you're even arguing here. You're all over the place. Is it a rehash of the above two points? I'm not going over that again.

Let me take a stab at it from bits of what I can make out:

Perhaps there is the chance that Nintendo is slightly boosting the R4's profile with the anti-piracy measures. As pointed out previously by others, though, if you frequent Akihabara or read DS Fanboy - where this news is being reported - you already know about the technology and have made your decision on piracy. There's this chance with a lot of preventive measures - put a padlock on a door? Gotta be something valuable inside. Put a security system on your home? Well, I didn't think of breaking in before, but now that you mention it... And yet padlocks and security systems are still around - for a reason. I don't buy this "since there's nothing one can do to preclude theft *completely*, it's stupid to take any preventative measures at all" mentality.

I'm not discounting the income from system sales. I'm arguing that to have Nintendo rely solely on system sales in a maturing market, via a plan that would dead-end game production, take away all income Nintendo realizes from game sales and licensing fees, turn the DS into a dead system, and shoot a cash cow in the head - all to placate a very small, non-paying segment of the market - makes no sense. I realize Matdredalia is trying, on the face of it, to make an economic argument. I'm saying that her economics is very bad. I maintain, however, that it's not an economic argument that drives the defense of piracy but an emotional, selfish one - "I don't wanna pay for my games".

Synonymous,

First off, stop talking down to me and acting like you know more about economics than I do. Unless you teach economics at a university or you are a grad student (economics), I know more about economics on my little pinky than you will ever know. My bachelor's degree proves it.

Next, I'm going to waste ONE post responding to your pseudo-economic RIAA-type rambling. After this, you can post forever for all I care, and I'm not going to bother replying.

So, that's out of the way.

First off, did you ever critically read anything I said???

#1. Synonymous, learn to read ... seriously. Stop putting words in my mouth (just like you treated Matdredalia). Either (a) you didn't read my 1st point or (b) you have no reading comprehension at all. Either way, you are an arrogant and deserve a good smacking. I'm not going to repeat my point #1, read it. It refutes every point you claim to make.

#2. Your point #2 is wrong again. Your making another false argument. And no, I will not play your game and respond to your absurd example. This is NOT a "free rider" problem. Your absurd example is refuted by people who have posted that claim to pirate AND buy games. You need to stop mischaracterizing this. If you still don't understand this, stop using Wikipedia, and visit your local university professor and ask WHY you are flawed logic is mischaracterizing this. I'm not here to teach you economics. :) While you are there, ask the economics professor why the RIAA-type argument of lost sales from pirating is absurd. :)

Even if it was a "free rider" situation, YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. The fact that you use the record industry as an example is hilarious. Your RIAA-type illogic is why your prove how truly clueless you are. MANY people have posted on the internet that record sales are NOT down because of pirating, but simply because the old business model of CDs is archaic, and has been replaced by online sales like iTunes. Similarly, there is no legitimate argument from ANY academia that support the loss sales due to pirating argument.

This is how absurd your argument is. I WILL USE THE SAME RIDICULOUS, OVERSTATEMENT-TYPE EXAMPLE THAT HAVE USED, SO YOUR LITTLE MIND CAN UNDERSTAND THIS. Following your crooked logic, IF I replace DS for a car, you are essentially arguing that if a car thief who is stealing a Lamborghini, was PREVENTED from steal a Lamborghini, then Lamborghini is losing money because otherwise the car thief would buy a Lamborghini. LOL. As IF the car thief would be buying a Lamborghini is he couldn't steal it. LOL. There IS NO lost sales, because the car thief (pirate) would never buy the Lamborghini in the first place (see WHY this is NOT a free rider problem NOW?).

Also, by your absurd suggestion (see your post on quote "Nintendo should not only allow but encourage them not to pay for *any* title"), Lamborghini should spend good money go after the car thief, because they are "losing sales"? LOL. ANY BUSINESS CAN SEE THIS IS ABSURD, but if we are talking about Lamborghini's, but people like you Synonymous think you can use a RIAA-type argument and spout pseudo economics while mischaracterizing the problem and using false logic to make the case for spending money in this absurd way. The refutation is this - no one except the RIAA even bothers, because it makes NO ECONOMIC SENSE to spend money to chase phantom sales loss (which I refuted with my over-the-top Lamborghini example).

PWNED.

And BTW, Nintendo is NOT encouraging or allowing anything. They are simply using sound business practices to serve their stockholders, which is their corporate duty. If it made business and/or economic sense to spend tons of money stopping pirates, Nintendo and other companies would do it (smarter minds than you or I are collectively getting paid to do so). As it is, Nintendo and others do what they can about pirating when it's easy to do, so and no great sums of money is wasted in the process of pursuing it. Not wasting alot of resources is NOT equal to encouraging and allowing anything. Synonymous you should work for the RIAA, because no good corporation will hire you. I know because I have worked for a mult-billion dollar company as a top financial executive.

I'm not going to even bother addressing your ramblings in #3.

I'm done. Feel free to post your reply(s). I'm not going to argue anymore.

Peace.

BlackDS - Amen, and thank you. :)

Synonymous - BlackDS pretty much said everything I could have against your arguments, and better, save for one minor thing.

The RIAA is losing money because they are using an outdated sales model and are not advancing with the times. Check out the leading tech blogs like TechCrunch and Mashable sometime, and look at the facts that are being presented about the current musical climate. It's basically been proven that the RIAA sales are dropping not because of piracy, but because

A) unlike the old days, record companies are not putting out the newest, greatest thing, they are recycling the same old musical archeatypes over and over again and people are sick of it,

B) Indie artists have found their outlet in the internet and are getting a LOT more focus and attention and people are moving away from mainstream artists,

and

C) the RIAA's anal retentive anti-piracy rhetoric is not helping them. They are wasting so much money on fighting piracy that they are not investing it where they should be: In finding new, great musicians. They aren't selling records because seriously, how many great new artists are there coming out that aren't the same damn thing over and over? (IE: Britney Spears CLONES)

Now, check out the sales records on Radiohead's "In Rainbows" CD. They offered the CD up for grabs for as little as 0 cents. You got to pay what it was worth to you. Some users chose to pay, some didn't. Regardless, In Rainbows was one of the top selling CD's last year. And by top, I mean, at one point, it was the #1 selling CD for an entire month. To top that off, their sales were astronomical. It made more money than all three of their last albums, and pulled in $10,000,000 in the first WEEK. I'm having trouble finding the article I read a couple weeks ago, but if I remember correctly, Radiohead made roughly 1/4th of the revenue on that one CD that the recording industry made off of all their sales. What does that tell you?

Also look into Nine Inch Nails "Ghost" album and the "sales" methods Trent Reznor implored for it. He uploaded the 1st CD to numerous torrent sites under a creative commons, and then sold the whole CD package on his website for a whopping $5. Guess what? He's still making plenty of money.

The RIAA is losing money because they aren't sticking with the times and learning to adapt and change with their consumer base and provide more value for their money, and because, frankly, their music sucks. Oh, and let's not forget that by spending so much time and effort going after pirates, they're losing way more money. For example, they went after a guy who wasn't even pirating, and they had to drop the charges against him, and now he's suing them for his legal fees :) Using the RIAA in any argument is a bad idea, mostly because they've proven themselves to be about as competent and reliable as George W. Bush.

Now then, I'm not going to keep arguing with you because frankly, you're not going to change your mind no matter what I say.

Since I can't reply to your reply to me, I'll reply here.

I was not suggesting that Nintendo condone nor advocate piracy at all. As a matter of fact, I don't even advocate it.

However, you go along with the logic that everyone would be pirating games if Nintendo weren't making these advancements, which is absurd. Most people A) prefer to obey the law, and B) don't even realize that you CAN pirate games for a console. I would say, on the whole, MAYBE 5% of DS owners have pirated games, and that's being generous.

Frankly, Nintendo is drawing MORE attention to piracy, and thus, informing more people that it is possible. They are not going to stop these people from pirating, and while they are trying to do so, are spreading the word to non-pirating gamers that it is possible so that now, those that are interested in it will look into it.

That was my point in saying that their anti-Piracy measures are costing them more money in the long term because Nintendo themselves are spreading the news of piracy. I didn't even know you could pirate DS games until I found out, of all places, from Nintendo themselves.

I was not saying that sales of the original console were what was making so much money, however, DS sales ARE the one constant that Nintendo can rely upon in this situation, and they are what is making Nintendo themselves money.

Gamer designers, however, make their money from selling games, of course. I'm not so naive as to think that game designers pull their budgets out of their arses.

However, even if we go with the generous estimate that 1 in 20 (5%) of DS users pirate, that still means 19/20 people are still going to buy games. And guess what, even pirates will still purchase at least some games. While I personally don't know all that many pirates myself, the couple that I do know still buy certain games if they think they're good enough. Whether it be for Wii compatibility or WiFi compatibility, ultimately, there are some games that you can not pirate and get the full features.

So, my basic point is, in the long run, Nintendo would be better off fighting piracy in a quiet manner, such as adding anti piracy measures to the system and games, rather than making huge public statements and actions, because all they're doing is alerting more people to the pirating phenomena, and hindering sales of the console, which while it may not affect game makers, does affect Nintendo's pockets.