THQ Impressed by 3DS Anti-Piracy Tech

[Kelethor]

Doh!
I give it 3 month maximun.Video games cost the double in my country , so piracy is justified.

No, its not. Piracy is not justified. ever. im sorry if games cost double in your place of living, but that does not give you the right too pirate games for free that you should have paid for.

 

[Jared]

I give it a couple months till someone cracks it somehow...it might be good now, but, it wont stop them

 

[RowdyRodimus]

Piracy will never go away and the main reason is because the companies don't want it to. What I mean is this, by claiming piracy they can justify low sales on shitty games to their shareholders, they can implement DRM that turns the customer into a slave owned by the publisher and they can also force people to keep buying licenses for games they have already paid for to play on different systems (such as if you buy Mario Bros. on the Wii VC and your Wii goes out, you can either send it to Nintendo or repurchase it for the new Wii). In any event it means more money for them with no manufacturing or develoopment costs involved. For every dollar they claim lost to piracy, I would bet they make 3/4 of a dollar by their draconian anti-piracy measures.

 

[infinity_turtles]

Better question, if someone pirates something they can't afford, who does it hurt?

such concepts only work for hobby,entertainment things.
food? water? if someone steals these because they are starving this is a justification in and of it self they are starving...
but if someone has a good life, good, a home...and wants to have some entertainment or optional activity but cant afford it, or cant afford all the parts of it...and they pirate it...or steal it then its unjustifable...they don't need it to survive its a pass time, an activity there is no justification for stealing such a thing.

It's not stealing, it's copying. If you find them to be morally equal, fine, but for a discussion on the morality of the action, the difference between the two matters. That said, I believe stealing is wrong because it harms someone, even in a possibly unnoticeable way, to take a physical object away. For something that isn't a physical object, that isn't the case. Without harm, there can be no wrong in my eyes. This applies to everything. Needing justification for your actions only comes into play when causing someone else harm does.

 

[Buizel91]

If piracy is caused by people by putting up the game on the internet for download why don't the game companies flood the internet with fake unplayable versions of the game. So many that many people won't be able to, or find it very hard to find a real version.

The likelyhood of this happening is slim and would be more hassle than profitable but that is just a thought that runs through my head.

Or better yet, whoever downloads them is blocked from the internet, that would be amusing...

 

[ramox]

So you're using legality to define morality? Because, given the number of pirates out there, clearly it isn't a matter of common sense. I suppose we have to agree to disagree on this then, because the way I define morality is based entirely around whether something causes harm.

It would seem so. The flaw in your definition in my eyes is that this argument only exists because it's that easy to pirate. There would be no such discussion if someone had to steal a physical copy to get it without paying, like with almost any other kind of comnsume goods. Therefor, laws are needed to enforce the morality we all think as common sense when it comes to cars/houses/electronic devices/whathaveyou.

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

It's not stealing, it's copying. If you find them to be morally equal, fine, but for a discussion on the morality of the action, the difference between the two matters. That said, I believe stealing is wrong because it harms someone, even in a possibly unnoticeable way, to take a physical object away. For something that isn't a physical object, that isn't the case. Without harm, there can be no wrong in my eyes. This applies to everything. Needing justification for your actions only comes into play when causing someone else harm does.

You have a very weird morality sense.
If I hear someone talk about an invention in detail they are going to apply for patent later on then I go off and patent it first then make lots of money, that idea did not exist on paper, or physical matter I had to put it down on paper and patent it...I've stolen it but by your standards that's not considered theft or even morally wrong.

As well another flaw in all of what you've said..If a new small game company releases a game spends 100k on startup costs to get it out there, and no one buys it but pirates it...the company has made no money and likely goes bankrupt...how many people does that hurt because every one stole the game?

your morality is quite flexible and ambiguous under it people can hurt others in many many ways under the right context and its not wrong under your terms.

One as I said simply has to point out that if 100% of people pirate games, then the industry dies, people lose jobs, money is lost for these companies...so your is just copying and not theft is completely bogus.

 

[Kanodin0]

The "always-on" network play they're planning for this system should also make it harder to pirate. That would allow them to issue stealth system updates that would quietly remove unauthorized content. Of course, that could be defeated simply by switching off the online, but I get the feeling that would lead to a very limiting experience.

I think this is the likeliest idea and Nintendo might have even nastier trick behind it. That trick being making it impossible to shut off the always on Online feature. Thus they could brick pirate systems anytime they want and the only way to stop it is to never be in an area where the 3DS can get Online or to actually modify the system's hardware. Determined pirates would still do the latter, but it would definitely hurt casual piracy.

 

[infinity_turtles]

If piracy is caused by people by putting up the game on the internet for download why don't the game companies flood the internet with fake unplayable versions of the game. So many that many people won't be able to, or find it very hard to find a real version.

The likelyhood of this happening is slim and would be more hassle than profitable but that is just a thought that runs through my head.

Or better yet, whoever downloads them is blocked from the internet, that would be amusing...

That's highly illegal. A lot more illegal than pirating something. Any company that did that would end up dealing with some very successful class action lawsuits. And the kicker? If the game companies are uploading them, the person wouldn't have technically pirated it, since those responsible for creating/distributing it were making it available.

 

[RMcD94]

In the future, all gaming money will be made via advertising (free-to-play), and we'll never have to buy anything again!

 

[Buizel91]

If piracy is caused by people by putting up the game on the internet for download why don't the game companies flood the internet with fake unplayable versions of the game. So many that many people won't be able to, or find it very hard to find a real version.

The likelyhood of this happening is slim and would be more hassle than profitable but that is just a thought that runs through my head.

Or better yet, whoever downloads them is blocked from the internet, that would be amusing...

That's highly illegal. A lot more illegal than pirating something. Any company that did that would end up dealing with some very successful class action lawsuits. And the kicker? If the game companies are uploading them, the person wouldn't have technically pirated it, since those responsible for creating/distributing it were making it available.

didn't see the Game Companies bit...my bad

 

[JediMB]

Could someone explain what exactly the DSi did to help combat piracy? I don't have one and I am not familiar with the changes made over the DS Lite.

It removed the GBA port, since the GBA port was a common tool for pirates, and it introduced new firmware that could be updated through Wi-Fi.

 

[Bocaj2000]

You see, by no means i am defending high prices. But you said it yourself, the reason people pirate is not because the stuff is too expensive. It's sinmply because they can.
If piracy wouldn't be technically so easy and the only way to get a copy of game XY would be to steal it from the Gamespot shelf no reasonable person would even think about doing so. We would suck it up and safe our money for the game we want to play or simply wouldn't play it.
You can argue prices as much as you want, but the sole reason for pirates is: "Because i can"

I love how you judge a group of many different people with many different backgrounds, motivations, and situations. If you honestly that the only reason that people pirate games is "because [they] can" then I pity you.

From personal experience, people pirate for numerous reasons. From not being able to afford it to wanting to see if the game is any good before buying it. Only nerdy ass holes pirate "just because they can."

EDIT:

that is completely untrue.
something like 30%+ of the humble indie bundle were pirated....and you could pay WHATEVER you wanted for it...a penny even...and 30% + of people still piated it.

Well that's not representative of everything, if new games were released at £15.00 instead of £40.00 I'd guarantee that more people would be inclined to just buy them. A lot of people who currently pirate games and other media are students who don't have enough money to afford them, although there will always be some people who will do it regardless of the price because they're just bad people.

And again, why is it that we all have the right to play any game we want despite not being able to afford em?

Fuck it, from now on I will answer all anti-piracy questions with something I found on the forum a little while ago:

"How about this justification:

Libraries are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

Torrent sites are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

There are only three real differences; amount of content, ease of access, social acceptance."

 

[infinity_turtles]

So you're using legality to define morality? Because, given the number of pirates out there, clearly it isn't a matter of common sense. I suppose we have to agree to disagree on this then, because the way I define morality is based entirely around whether something causes harm.

It would seem so. The flaw in your definition in my eyes is that this argument only exists because it's that easy to pirate. There would be no such discussion if someone had to steal a physical copy to get it without paying, like with almost any other kind of comnsume goods. Therefor, laws are needed to enforce the morality we all think as common sense when it comes to cars/houses/electronic devices/whathaveyou.

And in my eyes, the flaw in your sense of morality is that you fail to account for the meaningful differences between forms of media.

It's not stealing, it's copying. If you find them to be morally equal, fine, but for a discussion on the morality of the action, the difference between the two matters. That said, I believe stealing is wrong because it harms someone, even in a possibly unnoticeable way, to take a physical object away. For something that isn't a physical object, that isn't the case. Without harm, there can be no wrong in my eyes. This applies to everything. Needing justification for your actions only comes into play when causing someone else harm does.

You have a very weird morality sense.
If I hear someone talk about an invention in detail they are going to apply for patent later on then I go off and patent it first then make lots of money, that idea did not exist on paper, or physical matter I had to put it down on paper and patent it...I've stolen it but by your standards that's not considered theft or even morally wrong.

Except it does harm them, in that you have robbed them of the potential to profit from their ideas. I suppose I should have specified that non-physical things can be stolen, but copying them is not in and of itself stealing.

As well another flaw in all of what you've said..If a new small game company releases a game spends 100k on startup costs to get it out there, and no one buys it but pirates it...the company has made no money and likely goes bankrupt...how many people does that hurt because every one stole the game?

If no one would have bought it anyway? No one. Someone who pirates something they would have never bought harms no one. That was my statement.

your morality is quite flexible and ambiguous under it people can hurt others in many many ways under the right context and its not wrong under your terms.

Not true. My morality is very clearly defined and claims causing harm is wrong and is the only thing that's wrong.

One as I said simply has to point out that if 100% of people pirate games, then the industry dies, people lose jobs, money is lost for these companies...so your is just copying and not theft is completely bogus.

You know, studies show that people who buy a lot of music have a tendency to also pirate a lot of music? It makes sense if you realize anyone who buys a lot of something is likely to be very interested in it, but probably can't afford everything related to it.

 

[Mr. Fister]

Could someone explain what exactly the DSi did to help combat piracy? I don't have one and I am not familiar with the changes made over the DS Lite.

DSi's started including system updates like the Wii, which gave them the ability to deal with new piracy tactics as they popped up without messing around with the hardware itself. Not sure how successful it turned out, as once again you don't have to get the updates to play cartridge games, but it does disallow access to the Nintendo Shop Channel and probably some other channels.

 

[Xiorell]

Could someone explain what exactly the DSi did to help combat piracy? I don't have one and I am not familiar with the changes made over the DS Lite.

DSi's started including system updates like the Wii, which gave them the ability to deal with new piracy tactics as they popped up without messing around with the hardware itself. Not sure how successful it turned out, as once again you don't have to get the updates to play cartridge games, but it does disallow access to the Nintendo Shop Channel and probably some other channels.

I see. I remember seeing a guy I knew using one of them cartridges that you put a micro SD card in, and have shit loads of DS roms on there.
That was on a DS Lite, dunno if it'd work on a DSi then.

Not that it bothers me, don't own the machine, just curious

 

[Terramax]

"I actually asked Nintendo to explain the technology and they said it's very difficult to do so because it's so sophisticated,"

That has got to be the most lame answer to such a question.

TRANSLATION: Well, actually, it's really easy to hack, but if I give you some really lame answer, you guys at THQ are stupid enough to believe it.

Hopefully, Nintendo's anti-piracy measures for the 3DS will be as effective as it hopes, because as Curran suggests, publisher confidence is going to be key to getting decent third party titles on the device.

Well I doubt if the 3DS is unhackable that hackers are just going to give up and start buying games honestly.

 

[Atmos Duality]

90% of American DS users have pirated games? Uhh... there are A LOT of DS's in the hands of preteens that would have no clue how to do something like. I would like to know how they came up with that statistic, because 10% sounds like a more likely stat.

Yup. That quote is exactly where their credibility ended. After that, I knew this entire topic was doomed to the usual "Piracy" circular argument I see on this site.

That statistic is absolute bullshit.
I have seen like, ONE R4 in my state; between two colleges and several school systems.

The only possible "sophisticated tech" Nintendo could be thinking about involves Ubisoft's Online-All-the-Time DRM, and we all know how well that went down.

 

[oktalist]

"I actually asked Nintendo to explain the technology and they said it's very difficult to do so because it's so sophisticated,"

"We're marketing, how the fuck should we know how it works."

"It's a highly sophistamacated doohickey."

OT: "It's made it almost impossible to shift any significant volume." <- How can they say that when every kid and his mum and her mum all seem to have one?

Srsly, DRM is such a false economy. All these bureaocratic games companies are shooting themselves in the foot.