| spemanig said: It actually does. The market place isn't blind to wrong doing. It's the whole reason streaming and subscription platforms like Spotify and Netflix exist, thrive, and have largely replaced their predecessors in the first place. They're a direct market reaction to piracy. People can get all of this stuff for free now, and it's so rampant that it can't be policed or ignored. The marketplace changed, and companies have adjusted to accommedate that. Just because you don't like piracy, and you shouldn't, doesn't mean it hasn't tremendously depreciated the value of literally every form of media including games, and especially old games that also have to deal with being old. Not to state the obvious, but most people pirate old games as a means to avoid buying them. So the percieved value of these games to most people is a wopping $0. This entire Switch subscription is an admission by Nintendo that these games aren't worth what they've charged and that they can't get away with charging what they have if they want to make money. If they were and if they could, this wouldn't exist. I don't buy anything begrudgingly and I never said it was a problem, let alone someone elses. Consider it a joyous donation. I'm not mad that Nintendo overcharges for VC games. I'm not Jim Sterling. I'm just not oblivious to the fact that they absolutely do and have. |
Illegal activity doesn't make the product less than what they're perceived, using piracy to back your stance is such a flawed notion because if people could they'd want everything for free even newly released games but that doesn't mean their value is 0 and the market didn't change to accomodate that no they changed to take advantage of the rise in new tech to have a platform that retains a userbase as it's the business model that has the most reach and efficiency.
The entire subscription is actually a signal of a change in direction and approach to business as the subscription will cover a range of things not just VC nowhere at any point does it signal the games not being worth what people bought them for because believe me people would still buy them if they weren't available in the subscription.
Much like what someone earliar said PS1 games like FFVII which are just as old and sold for £10 - £12 on PSN and even Steam yet we don't get the same over charging calls in those cases, when some one using the overcharging argument is shown how much it legitimately costs to buy some of the older games we get them turning to piracy to try and back their notion the latter of which is amusingly flawed because it's like someone saying they shouldn't have to pay for an iPhone because their mate robbed a batch of the back of a truck.
