354
Randy Pitchford asks fans if they'd swallow future Borderlands exclusivity deals, almost 10,000 people say just put your damn games on Steam (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/games@lemmy.world
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • They put their money towards suing the shit out of emulation projects and removing ROM sites.
  • This is compounded by the fact that they won't even sell you those ROMs anymore. They only make them available to rent in perpetuity. People are rightly skeptical of a future where Microsoft only makes their games available via Game Pass rather than it just being an economical option, but Nintendo is already doing the thing that people are afraid of.
  • They're the last holdout that won't put their games on PC in an era where console exclusivity doesn't make sense anymore. There's no reason to play Zelda at 20 FPS and 360p when, at the time of release, my PC was already quite capable of running the game at acceptable resolutions and frame rates. This is just willfully selling people an inferior product when they have the ability to deliver a better one. Then they have the gall to charge their customers, who already paid $70, even more for an upgrade to finally run those games at acceptable performance on their next console. And in case you think this is me justifying piracy, I didn't pirate the game; I didn't play it at all.
  • I'm a competitive fighting game player, and the way they fight against their own fans for trying to compete in Smash Bros. is atrocious.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    1. They sue and go after emulation projects/ROM sites for modern content just as much as Microsoft and Sony do, MS/Sony just get a pass for some reason. Probably because people try to pirate current-gen content less for them, but they do the exact same thing every time it happens. Nintendo (and, it must be said, MS/Sony) don't really go after the old stuff for the most part. Also, it must be said that several times that emu/ROM sites were shut down and Nintendo was blamed it turned out it wasn't actually Nintendo. Same thing with that whole streaming copystrike issue- turns out it was some random company taking down gameplay videos, not Nintendo.

    2. Sony already does this too, yet again they pretty much universally get a pass for making you permanently lose almost all (if not all) your stuff if you let your sub lapse. Even if you resub, you don't get it back.

    3. In my opinion this is just a bad faith argument. Of course they're not putting their games on PC, they would cannibalize their own sales. Trying to pretend that you should boycott Nintendo for not actively destroying their own economic model is certainly A Take.

    4. Entirely fair. My understanding is that they're getting better at this, but after the shitshow that was brawl that's a low fucking bar. I could point out that smash bros isn't actually Nintendo (it was HAL, then Sora, then Bandai) but like... lets be real here, it's Sakurai running the show, and Sakurai basically is working for Nintendo even if he isn't employed there lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Nintendo (and, it must be said, MS/Sony) don’t really go after the old stuff for the most part.

    They absolutely do. And again, I probably wouldn't mind if all of the sites they shut down were hosting games that could be legally purchased in a consumer friendly way, but they can't. Shutting down the Switch emulator built on ill-gotten code is one thing; buying out the legitimate Switch emulator is a super dick move.

    Sony already does this too

    Thanks for reminding me. I don't think of Sony much at all, honestly, but they do tend to lock their retro games behind a subscription, some of which can only be played that way. I think they tend to be time-limited and eventually return to sale in most cases? So not quite as bad as what Nintendo does, but still not admirable. I know you went in a different direction with this, but their subscription incentives are theirs to decide; I just hate it when something is only available via subscription when it doesn't have to be.

    In my opinion this is just a bad faith argument. Of course they’re not putting their games on PC, they would cannibalize their own sales. Trying to pretend that you should boycott Nintendo for not actively destroying their own economic model is certainly A Take.

    Boycott is a strong word. All of the other reasons I don't buy their stuff is because of what they do with the revenue that I would give them, but in this case in particular, it's because I don't buy bad products when I can instead buy good products. I'm certainly not about to spend $530 plus sales tax to play Tears of the Kingdom at acceptable frame rates on a machine that's going to sit under my TV collecting dust when I'm done with the game. I already have a PC that could run it if they made it available there, and it would still run it better than Switch 2. Of course they're doing what they're doing because it's more lucrative for them, but if that's not aligned with what matters to me, then I'm not inclined to give them my money. There are so many other games out there worth playing instead that respect me more as a customer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent