By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HylianSwordsman on 01 November 2014
Edit Thread
Teeqoz said:
HylianSwordsman said:


They took that risk with the DS. They didn't with this generation. Can't let a positive Nintendo comment go, can you? I wasn't even being that positive, just saying he admitted it was financially motivated. So tell me then, if it wasn't for the seller, then what do YOU think region locking was for? How do YOU explain why the DS was region free? Let me guess, because Nintendo is evil and stupid and wants everyone to be sad and not buy their products? But with the DS they were not evil and smart? I really don't get what you want him to say. He flat out admits the reason was for the seller, and that they're only considering this now because it seems like being region free could benefit both. Now where might they have gotten that idea? Perhaps from seeing the difference between the DS and 3DS?


No, it's a piece of crap because the other console manufacturers, and Nintendo themselves in the past didn't care about those "circumstances on the sellers side" so why would they start now?


Again, what is his reasoning then? Just random acts of stupidity and/or evil? Clearly they took a risk with the DS, thought they could do even better financially with region locking the 3DS, and now they see the difference and are considering going back. This is an investor Q&A, after all. It's all about the financial motivations. Saying that he's lying about region locking for financial reasons in an investor meeting is pointless. It's not crap, you just don't like region locking. But then you don't like Nintendo either, so it's not like you really care, you just want an excuse to call Nintendo evil/stupid. It doesn't matter why they didn't care with the DS, what matters is that they decided they did care, and between it being financially motivated to benefit the seller, the obvious reason for all region locking (unless you think it benefits the buyer?), and being a random act with no reasoning behind it, I'm inclined to believe it's financially motivated to benefit the seller, because that makes more sense than acting randomly. It's a basic principle of economics, that people and corporations do what they think is in their best interest at the time. So saying that because they made one decision at one time and a different decision later means the later decision is crap is illogical. The simpler, more logical conclusion is that they changed their minds about that policy based on new reasoning about what would be in their best interest. Now they gave their reasons for it, and I really don't know what more you want from them. I wish it wasn't region locked either, but that doesn't mean I'm going to claim they're lying about their reasons for region locking when they fully admit the financial motivations behind the decision.