RolStoppable said:
I mean, you started your previous post with this:
That's pretty dismissive towards lending with "on the off chance this is real" (nevermind the dumb image you posted), as if the suggestion of lending and borrowing physical games was a ridiculous concept. As for the reasons why people would rather own something than lend and borrow, there aren't many: 1. Owning means you can play a game any time you want while borrowing makes you dependent on someone else. That's about it. Point 1 can be solved by giving a friend with a copy a call and arrange an exchange, so you'd possibly have to wait a day or two until you can play the game. Point 2 is a mere matter of trust and I don't think our definition of a friend is the same, because to me it means that I know in advance that it is at least 99.9% safe to lend or borrow.
This is what I first replied to, explaining to you how easily this supposed problem can be worked around. In the first bolded sentence you assert that owners of a Wii U copy have to pay 60 bucks to play the new content, in the second bolded sentence you assert that Nintendo treats their most valuable fans the worst. Both assertion are so off-base that they are clear signs of a rant rather than reasonable criticism. And it just continues:
Who is irrational and stupid is not determined by an objective measurement here. This is just your subjective perception, leading you to believe that if Nintendo did it exactly the way you wanted, there shouldn't be an issue for anyone, unless they are stupid and irrational. Physical copies are objectively superior to digital copies, there's just no doubt about it. Physical can be lent, borrowed and sold, and on top of all these things, they aren't bound to the prices that Nintendo sets on the eShop. For example, nowadays I can either pay €60 on the eShop for Pikmin 3 Deluxe (or €40 when Nintendo offers a discount) or I can buy the physical copy for €28-35 depending on the retailer I choose. My brother is one of those "I prefer digital" idiots ("I don't have to swap cards to play a different game"), so I laughed hard when he first passed on the chance to buy Pikmin 3 Deluxe physical for €28, but then at home had second thoughts and browsed the eShop to see the digital version for a shocking €60. In closing I have to say that I doubt that this conversation has much to offer anymore. The main point is that I (and many others) didn't have to pay for SM3DW again to play Bowser's Fury, nor did I (and they) have to pay anything because of this ancient practice of borrowing games. Whenever I want to play Bowser's Fury again, I'll just give a friend a call. So whenever I read a post like yours, it feels like you are upset because you allowed yourself to get duped with Deluxe versions at one point or another, but don't want to admit it and instead want to turn it into an issue of greedy/cruel Nintendo. But as long as Nintendo sells physical versions, we won't have a serious problem on our hands. But I'll admit that something like the Encore version of Tokyo Mirage Sessions is hard to come by due to its low printrun and tiny appeal; very much a longshot to know someone with a physical copy. I doubt that I'll respond again, but I am not one to claim the last word. Meaning you are free to post your final thoughts for everyone to read, including myself, and that will be the end of it, unless someone else decides to chime in. |
I literally did not know if you were serious. Not because borrowing games is something ridiculous, but because it really has nothing to do with whether or not Nintendo should provide a digital option. Even if there is a workaround, there is no reason for Nintendo not to provide an option in the first place so that no workaround is needed, and people who would rather by a copy, digital or otherwise, can do so.
As for the reasons why that would be, it shouldn't have to be said, but I guess it does. If I own a copy, physical or otherwise, I can play it whenever I want. I get bored next weekend, I can replay Bowser's Fury. I replay my games often. I don't have to spend time finding who has it, getting it, etc and don't need to worry about finishing it by a certain time or returning it. More importantly, I don't know if any of my friends actually have it. I don't keep tabs on that, and not many of my friends are big gamers, and there's only like two or three close friends I have that are specifically Nintendo gamers. It was not part of my screening process. There are something like 3 millionish physical copies, and 300 million people in the US. That means about 1% of people own a copy. I haven't crunched the numbers, but even for gamers who are more likely to have other gamer friends, it seems well within the realm of possibility for them not to know someone who would be comfortable in lending them the game. And that's just for this particular example, where the game is especially popular. Xenoblade DE sold like six million worldwide, so probably around 1.5 million physical copies are floating around in the states. Mario and Luigi on 3DS sold like, a million? It seems quite likely that even for a person of average popularity, it's unlikely any game you happen to want will be available to borrow.
Obviously tons of people buy Nintendo games rather than borrow them, for whatever reason. Kind of the whole reason they're still in business. Around 10 million bought 3D World, so clearly for those people borrowing was not a suitable alternative.
So yeah, there's nothing wrong with borrowing in general. If you have a friend with a game, great. But the idea that this was a serious solution to the problem I presented stuck me as ludicrous to the point where I genuinely thought it was a joke I wasn't quite getting. Especially when you said this was somehow an example of generosity on Nintendo's part.
If you think those two sentences make a rant, I guess you've never heard a good rant before. But please, stop saying "you said that" or "you asserted that" and then following with something I did not say. I made no statement about how Nintendo generally treats their most loyal fans, only talked about that particular circumstance.
I don't know what your general position on physical games vs digital has to do with anything. I already stated that my preference would be for these things to be available both physically and digitally, but business realities might make that non-viable. I'm sorry about your brother, but the issue was never at any point physical vs digital. It was having an option to buy Bowser's Fury and other similar content alone and digitally, vs not having any option at all. Neither are ideal, but one is clearly better for consumers. And, if they don't like it, they can always opt to borrow instead.
You've at least addressed some points, but not the main one. More options is better for consumers almost always. As it is now, people who want to play Bowser's Fury, legally, can buy 3D World physically or digital, rent, or borrow. Adding the option to buy the content separately would cost Nintendo next to nothing, and would be a better option for people who owned 3D World and for whatever reason could not/would not borrow. Assuming they only did that digitally, anyone who doesn't like buying digital games has the exact same options as they did before, so I cannot think of any rational reason for them to be upset. If you are upset that someone else is buying a game digitally, then yes, that is irrational and stupid.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 15 September 2022
Essay Pro