THQ Impressed by 3DS Anti-Piracy Tech

[Rakkana]

I give it one month. Those hackers like a challenge.

 

[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.

riiight. as if people actually update their DS to the latest version. if 70% of them just don't flat out say "why? i can play my games as is. i aint updating shit." or the DS simply wont connect like mine. a version based protection system is just laughable.

Hey, I'm not saying it's effective. I'm still on System Menu 3.2 for my Wii, so I'm free to import games from the US and Japan at my own leisure. Plus, I've got the Shopping Channel updated separately, so I still have Virtual Console and WiiWare access.

 

[ramox]

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."

You misunderstand. "Because i can" is the sole reason any of the hundreds of reasons pirates use even come into play. If they couldn't pirate that easily there would be no "demo-play" argument, no "i can't afford it" argument and not any other kind of excuse.
So yes, it still comes down to "because i can"

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Real statistics are actually showing that piracy improves sales, and if the DS isn't selling well I'm the goddamned queen of fucking england. The dsI dropped in sales because IT WAS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT DS YOU NOBJOBS. They released three different versions of the DS in one year, then blame Pirarcy for a drop in sales percentage of a model?

Jesus christ Nintendo, I thought you could do no wrong with the awesome that was your E3 showing but this piracy bitching is pathetic.

 

[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.

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.

Care to explain to me this mysterious differences which gives people the right to not pay for one while they have to pay for the other?

 

[Digikid]

3 months untill it is hacked... I called it! (not that I hope it will be, It's just that " sophisticated" doesn't mean shit to the "Hackers" or whatever)

I'll take that and lower it to ONE month.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

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.

Care to explain to me this mysterious differences which gives people the right to not pay for one while they have to pay for the other?

The same base primate instincts that drive human beings to aquire things as easily as possible with the least hassle are the ones that give you the moral imperitive to denounce those that do to improve pack standing.

Piracy can actually improve sales figures, and has, but the statistics are misread or manipulated by companies and CEO's, or reactionary individuals who believe OMG STEALIN IS TAKIN OUR JOBS!

 

[Windexglow]

So all in all, were anyone's opinions changed by this 'discussion'?

 

[KrazyKain]

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

gaming is a luxery, so wether it costs alot or not, does not justify piracy.. besides, if its expensive, order online

 

[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.

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.

Care to explain to me this mysterious differences which gives people the right to not pay for one while they have to pay for the other?

The same base primate instincts that drive human beings to aquire things as easily as possible with the least hassle are the ones that give you the moral imperitive to denounce those that do to improve pack standing.

Piracy can actually improve sales figures, and has, but the statistics are misread or manipulated by companies and CEO's, or reactionary individuals who believe OMG STEALIN IS TAKIN OUR JOBS!

You see, i wholeheartedly agree with your second paragraph.
Though, that doesn't change one thing about it being wrong to take something with a pricetag on without paying. There is no justification for it, only excuses.

 

[elricik]

If a game can be played, it will be pirated, its as simple as that. The hacker pirates will figure out how to break this things, and then they'll get to play the next Pokemon game a year before us!

 

[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.

Care to explain to me this mysterious differences which gives people the right to not pay for one while they have to pay for the other?

The fact that not paying for one causes harm to someone. Also, there is no right. Just because doing something isn't wrong doesn't mean you're also entitled to do it. It means nothing more than doing something that you can do that isn't wrong, isn't wrong. Frankly, I think the concept of entitlement is bullshit, and is the crux of your belief(People are entitled to payment for everything you receive), not mine.

Better question, if someone pirates something they can't afford, who does it hurt? If they can't afford it, they could have never bought it, so it isn't a lost sale. It's not a physical product, so copying it doesn't make it so the developers can't sell that copy. So the only problem someone can have with someone pirating something they can't afford is that they haven't "earned" it. I think that's pretty selfish, especially if you consider higher prices and/or lower pay in certain areas making someone who's worked the same job just as hard in a different area having significantly less than you.

The hole in your logic is staggering.

Having already read what follows, no. No it isn't. I'll get to why it isn't in a second, but claiming you've found a hole with my logic when you've yet to even state the hole, let alone give me a chance for a rebuttal, is rather arrogant. All of my assumptions of others beliefs that I've stated so far have at least been posed as questions, not some infallible fact.

Following your logic through to it's inevitable conclusion: I should make sure to spend all my money on other stuff, because if I can't afford the games, it doesn't hurt anybody if I pirate them anyway.

If I were talking about a system rather than morality, that might be right. I'm not talking about a system though. Morality can in fact take into account your intentions, while a system can not. As such, had the option to pirate not been available, you would have a bought the game, meaning you took a potential sale. This differs from someone who would have never bought something regardless of whether they could pirate it or not.

Tell me, what, exactly, is the incentive to save and purchase a game (thus adding to sales numbers and increasing the chances that the developer will get rewarded by further work -- which in turn rewards us when good developers get to create more games) if the excuse of "not having the resources to buy it" makes it okay to just take it?

If you're able to save and buy it, you do in fact have the resources for it. That aside, an incentive to buy something might be to, I don't know, support the creation of content you enjoy? But then, maybe you care less about the people who create things you enjoy than I do?

Or if you want to put it another way, "If you kill someone who was going to die anyway, who does it hurt?"

The person being killed and possibly their family? Less time alive, possibly a more painful death, the emotional trauma their family experiences as a result of them being killed rather then dying in some other form, the emotional trauma they go through right before they die as a result of being murdered rather than dying some other way... There are lots of ways to harm someone.

 

[infinity_turtles]

Why are you being a dick? You're cutting into a discussion which was resolved earlier, demanding to multiple people that YOU ARE RIGHT and I AM WRONG. Can't you just accept that I disagree with something you don't? "THE HOLE IN YOUR LOGIC IS STAGGERING." Who are you to say that to someone, really?

Thanks, but I'm willing to reply to anyone who thinks they've found a flaw in my logic. I do enjoy a good argument, even if it's fundamentally pointless. The last bit is quite right though, and I would however appreciate it if they realized that just because their issue may not have been addressed yet, doesn't mean my logic doesn't cover it.

 

[Low Key]

If highly secure government websites can be hacked, so can the 3DS. This is just another case of a developer blowing smoke, and by publicly making a statement about it, pirates will just see it as a challenge.

It's like someone setting a shiny box in the middle a room of people and saying "I'm going to leave for an hour, but whatever you do, don't look in this box!". Of course people are going to be driven to do it.

 

[Ghost]

In April Nintendo blamed piracy for a drop of nearly 50% in DS sales

How does a DS fit down a cable?

But anywho, hopefully these measures are effective, but i'm sure no matter how advanced they are they'll be cracked in no time, it's always the case... Regardless, Nintendo will be rolling in money from it in no time.