Yoshi's Cookie Will Be Removed From Virtual Console Friday

[Sarge034]

To you, yes.

And that is the only opinion that matters to me. Funny that...

Both have their advantages but I'll be damned if one can claim to be objectively better than the other. Both are objectively better than the other in different fields.

Then I guess you'll be damned because physical copies come out on top in so many more categories than digital copies do that, at least for now, physical copies are better. Somehow a physical copy has survived and continued to function since 1992. While the digital version was released in 2008 and ceased to function in 2013.

Physical copy- 21+ years
Digital copy- 5 years

Longevity goes to physical copy. Ownership goes to physical copy. Less hard drive space goes to physical copy. Win goes to physical copy.

If you have counterpoint share them. I may very well be missing something that pushes my view to a neutral, or even positive, view of digital copies. Doubtful, but never say never.

 

[Abomination]

To you, yes.

And that is the only opinion that matters to me. Funny that...

Both have their advantages but I'll be damned if one can claim to be objectively better than the other. Both are objectively better than the other in different fields.

Then I guess you'll be damned because physical copies come out on top in so many more categories than digital copies do that, at least for now, physical copies are better. Somehow a physical copy has survived and continued to function since 1992. While the digital version was released in 2008 and ceased to function in 2013.

Physical copy- 21+ years
Digital copy- 5 years

Longevity goes to physical copy. Ownership goes to physical copy. Less hard drive space goes to physical copy. Win goes to physical copy.

If you have counterpoint share them. I may very well be missing something that pushes my view to a neutral, or even positive, view of digital copies. Doubtful, but never say never.

I'd rather not attempt to engage in a competition with shifting goalposts, if that's all the same to you.

But would you mind sending me your copy of that game? I'm in New Zealand though so the shipping costs will probably be high.

 

[josh4president]

One word:

Emulator

 

[Dragonbums]

If they have to take it down, then so be it. Personally they should've given everyone who had already purchased it a code so if they lose the original game, they can have a one time chance to re download it. Then again, if the game isn't on their servers, how is anyone going to get the game anyway?


I mean, I'm pretty sure they could've renewed the license or something.

To be honest....all I can think of when I hear this news is a teeny, tiny violin playing a sad tune. Clearly this is a tragedy for Yoshi Cookie fans everywhere.


And as everyone else has stated before hand. There are probably a million ROM hacks of the thing.

 

[Sarge034]

I'd rather not attempt to engage in a competition with shifting goalposts, if that's all the same to you.

So what exactly are the "shifting goalposts"? My point was that physical was better, I then provided points and facts. Unless you are talking about the ever improving technology...

But would you mind sending me your copy of that game? I'm in New Zealand though so the shipping costs will probably be high.

Yes I would mind. How do you think I know it still works? It aint because I have left it on the self since '92.

 

[Abomination]

I'd rather not attempt to engage in a competition with shifting goalposts, if that's all the same to you.

So what exactly are the "shifting goalposts"? My point was that physical was better, I then provided points and facts. Unless you are talking about the ever improving technology...

Points in its favour do not make it objectively better. If the basis for something being objectively better is how long it remains available to you then I would agree, but your statement was that physical media is objectively better than digital media.

It is in some ways, and it isn't in other ways.

But would you mind sending me your copy of that game? I'm in New Zealand though so the shipping costs will probably be high.

Yes I would mind. How do you think I know it still works? It aint because I have left it on the self since '92.

No but I want to play it. Can you send it to me and I'll send it back. In return I'll send you a digital game, something worth about $20... and you can keep it. Problem is it'll cost you more to send me the physical copy.

 

[Sarge034]

Points in its favour do not make it objectively better. If the basis for something being objectively better is how long it remains available to you then I would agree, but your statement was that physical media is objectively better than digital media.

It is in some ways, and it isn't in other ways.

I literally stopped reading and laughed and laughed and laughed. The ONLY way to determine what is objectively better is to draw up all pros and cons for the competing items and see who takes more points in its' favor. I brought up some of the categories that physical media wins and asked you to provide a counter argument which you have failed to provide. Instead hiding behind the non-answer that is "Both are objectively better than the other in different fields." This is true, however the objectively better one is objectively better in more objective fields than the other. I brought up longevity, ownership, and hard drive space. I will add accesses without internet and easiest on bandwidth restrictions.

No but I want to play it. Can you send it to me and I'll send it back. In return I'll send you a digital game, something worth about $20... and you can keep it. Problem is it'll cost you more to send me the physical copy.

If you want to play it so bad get the digital copy. You seem to think that is an acceptable venue so use it. Oh wait... You CAN'T because this digital media has already been scrubbed in Europe! I don't know you, I don't trust you, and I don't care if you play the game. I know what you are trying to say and if I had a friend that I actually trusted a ways away I'd tell them no too. Not because it is "more expensive" to send the physical copy, but because I am very whimsical when it comes to what I want to play. I never know when I might really want to pop in any game. Also, other than Steam (who retains ownership of the games you are renting btw) who lets you barrow and trade digital games? To my knowledge, no one does. So add that to the physical media pros, barrowing/trading allowed.

 

[Sarge034]

Edit- Sorry, double post.

 

[Abomination]

the objectively better one is objectively better in more objective fields than the other.

Sorry, there's no metric there for this.

One point in its favor doesn't count against one point not in its favor. The value of the objective benefits is subjective depending on the person using the medium. Perhaps it's better for YOU in YOUR scenario but that doesn't mean it's better for someone else in their scenario. To some people ease of access and not requiring physical space is more important than the potential benefits that a physical copy provides, some might find how cheap a digital copy is compared to a physical copy to be preferable.

One is not objectively better than the other. Better for YOU perhaps, and more power to you, but certainly not better for everyone... and that's okay. It's okay to like a certain thing more than someone else likes something... and it's okay for them to like a certain thing more than you like a certain other thing.

I literally stopped reading and laughed and laughed and laughed.

Just don't be dismissive about it.

 

[Sarge034]

Sorry, there's no metric there for this.

One point in its favor doesn't count against one point not in its favor. The value of the objective benefits is subjective depending on the person using the medium. Perhaps it's better for YOU in YOUR scenario but that doesn't mean it's better for someone else in their scenario. To some people ease of access and not requiring physical space is more important than the potential benefits that a physical copy provides, some might find how cheap a digital copy is compared to a physical copy to be preferable.

One is not objectively better than the other. Better for YOU perhaps, and more power to you, but certainly not better for everyone... and that's okay. It's okay to like a certain thing more than someone else likes something... and it's okay for them to like a certain thing more than you like a certain other thing.

You keep using the word, "objectively"...

An objective point can never be subjective, or it would be a subjective point.

Objective point- Physical media takes up less hard drive space than digital media.
Subjective point- If the user cares about hard drive space.

You keep saying that neither can be objectively better and this is false. If you said that it was up to the individual to determine which was subjectively better and it will be different from person to person I would have agreed wholeheartedly. But you are acting like it is impossible to jot down the quantitative data and tally it.

Just don't be dismissive about it.

I was actually quite the opposite. I addressed your statement with clarifications and fact. This, however, was just too much. "Points in its favour (favor) do not make it objectively better." If they are objective points, which mine were/are, then they do in fact make it objectively better. Assuming, of course, that there are more points in the column those are included in than the other column.

 

[Abomination]

Assuming, of course, that there are more points in the column those are included in than the other column.

Keep using that 4th grade version of objectivity then. A point is only as valuable as it is to the person who considers it valuable.

This isn't a game of soccer. A "point" isn't as valuable as any other point.

 

[Sarge034]

Assuming, of course, that there are more points in the column those are included in than the other column.

Keep using that 4th grade version of objectivity then. A point is only as valuable as it is to the person who considers it valuable.

This isn't a game of soccer. A "point" isn't as valuable as any other point.

I did learn a lot in fourth grade. Let me share my vast wealth of knowledge.

ob·jec·tive

a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.

b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

So like I said...

 

[Abomination]

Assuming, of course, that there are more points in the column those are included in than the other column.

Keep using that 4th grade version of objectivity then. A point is only as valuable as it is to the person who considers it valuable.

This isn't a game of soccer. A "point" isn't as valuable as any other point.

I did learn a lot in fourth grade. Let me share my vast wealth of knowledge.[/img]

Something can be objectively better than something else in a particular fashion (a "point"), but how much value that "point" has can be subjective.

Digital media is subjectively better than physical media in some areas. Physical media is subjectively better than digital in some areas. How valuable those areas are to a consumer are subjective. If someone cares more about value for money than data space on their hard drive then they will consider the point for how much cheaper digital media can be to be subjectively better for them, ergo the fact that physical media can objectively take up less space on their hard drive is less valuable to them than to someone who is struggling to have all the programs they want installed on their computer.

This isn't a 1 for 1 point system. We aren't playing soccer. Just because one medium has more "points" doesn't mean it wins. A point for one person could be worth 5 whereas that same point for someone else could be worth 3. The fact they are points is objective. The value of those points is subjective.

 

[Sarge034]

Something can (has to) be objectively better than something else in a particular fashion (a "point"), but how much value that "point" has can be (is) subjective.

You almost got it exactly right. Something can be objectively better, but someone can prefer the other based on subjective views.

Digital media is subjectively better than physical media in some areas. Physical media is subjectively better than digital in some areas. How valuable those areas are to a consumer are subjective. If someone cares more about value for money than data space on their hard drive then they will consider the point for how much cheaper digital media can be to be subjectively better for them, ergo the fact that physical media can objectively take up less space on their hard drive is less valuable to them than to someone who is struggling to have all the programs they want installed on their computer.

True and irrelevant to the conversation. The two are devoid of each other. To objectively judge a winner you must simply calculate what does what better. To subjectively judge a winner you must decide how you feel about those objective points.

This isn't a 1 for 1 point system. We aren't playing soccer. Just because one medium has more "points" doesn't mean it wins. A point for one person could be worth 5 whereas that same point for someone else could be worth 3. The fact they are points is objective. The value of those points is subjective.

EXACTLY!!! This has been my point the whole time and in an objective system it is a "1 for 1 point system". That is the only way an objective system works.

How bout this for a simple demonstration. I have a gaming PC that is going on 5 years now, an Xbox 360, and a PS3. Objectively (spec wise)- PC > PS3 > 360
Subjectively (enjoyment wise)- 360 > PC > PS3

I was taking issue with the fact you said, "Both have their advantages but I'll be damned if one can claim to be objectively better than the other." Unless they are dead even there HAS to be one objectively better. I think I got the verbiage through to you because you started using "subjective" a lot more.

 

[Abomination]

I was taking issue with the fact you said, "Both have their advantages but I'll be damned if one can claim to be objectively better than the other." Unless they are dead even there HAS to be one objectively better. I think I got the verbiage through to you because you started using "subjective" a lot more.

One can be objectively better than the other in a particular area. A hammer is objectively better than a pencil at hammering in nails and a pencil is objectively better than a hammer at recording thoughts onto parchment. Which is objectively the better implement?

What area do you claim physical media to be objectively better than digital media?

 

[Sarge034]

One can be objectively better than the other in a particular area. A hammer is objectively better than a pencil at hammering in nails and a pencil is objectively better than a hammer at recording thoughts onto parchment. Which is objectively the better implement?

Depends, what objective quire are you asking? That was a nice straw man though. Digital and physical media are two sides of the same coin being objectively compared on what they both do. A more apt comparison would be a ballpeen hammer or a claw hammer. An ink pen or a pencil.

What area do you claim physical media to be objectively better than digital media?

Can you not read? I have stated that information twice now. "I brought up longevity, ownership, and hard drive space. I will add accesses without internet and easiest on bandwidth restrictions." "So add that to the physical media pros, barrowing/trading allowed."

 

[Abomination]

One can be objectively better than the other in a particular area. A hammer is objectively better than a pencil at hammering in nails and a pencil is objectively better than a hammer at recording thoughts onto parchment. Which is objectively the better implement?

Depends, what objective quire are you asking? That was a nice straw man though. Digital and physical media are two sides of the same coin being objectively compared on what they both do. A more apt comparison would be a ballpeen hammer or a claw hammer. An ink pen or a pencil.

Then fine, what is objectively the better hammer or the better writing instrument in those situations?

What area do you claim physical media to be objectively better than digital media?

Can you not read? I have stated that information twice now. "I brought up longevity, ownership, and hard drive space. I will add accesses without internet and easiest on bandwidth restrictions." "So add that to the physical media pros, barrowing/trading allowed."

So it's objectively better in those areas... that doesn't mean it's objectively better. What about cost? Wear and tear? Transit time? Fuel costs? Lack of stock when purchasing? General convenience? No need of physical storage? Automatic categorizing? Non-physical DRM?

You see, all of your advantages I can identify as advantages but subjectively they mean nothing to me. So while they might be an objective points in its favour the value of some of those points is 0 to an individual. I recognize this can happen for the objective advantages of digital media as well. That is why I would never make the claim that digital media is objectively better than physical media... even though I prefer digital media over physical media as it suits my situation far better.

To me the disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages it has over its rival.

 

[WeepingAngels]

What I'm surprised about is that there was a pre-SNES yoshi. I had no idea that yoshi was a cookie eating dinosaur in the days before mario turned 16-bit.

I suspect that Nintendo isn't particularly happy to remove them from the site. I'm really surprised about R-Type.

It was released after Super Mario World.

 

[Sarge034]

Then fine, what is objectively the better hammer or the better writing instrument in those situations?

The hammer is easy while the writing utensil not so much. Claw hammer and pen. A ballpeen hammer is highly specialized to do two jobs while a claw hammer is designed to do a minimum of three while also being capable of completing the ballpeen's jobs as well. Pen just barely edged out pencil due to the tip not breaking and requiring sharpening.

So it's objectively better in those areas... that doesn't mean it's objectively better. What about cost? Wear and tear? Transit time? Fuel costs? Lack of stock when purchasing? General convenience? No need of physical storage? Automatic categorizing? Non-physical DRM?

You see, all of your advantages I can identify as advantages but subjectively they mean nothing to me. So while they might be an objective points in its favour the value of some of those points is 0 to an individual. I recognize this can happen for the objective advantages of digital media as well. That is why I would never make the claim that digital media is objectively better than physical media... even though I prefer digital media over physical media as it suits my situation far better.

To me the disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages it has over its rival.

Finally you provide some counterpoints. However we are back to you using the wrong terminology. Seriously, look it up. Objective = fact
Subjective = feelings

The way you feel about an objective point is irrelevant, because you are trying to make it a subjective point.

So let's start a list then.
Objective points
-longevity----------------------------Physical
-ownership----------------------------Physical
-hard drive space---------------------Physical
-accesses without internet------------Physical
-accesses with internet---------------Both
-easiest on bandwidth restrictions----Physical
-barrowing/trading allowed------------Physical
-cost---------------------------------Tie (usually comparable price with tax applied to both, also anomalies high/low for both)
-wear and tear-------------Both (vehicle wear sustained for physical or console/modem/router wear sustained for digital)
-transit time-------------------------Digital
-download time------------------------Physical
-fuel costs---------------------------Digital
-electricity cost---------------------Physical
-lack of stock when purchasing--------Digital
-servers down when downloading--------Physical
-general convenience--------------------------------XXXXXXXSUBJECTIVE POINTXXXXXXX
-no need of physical storage----------Neither (hard drive or shelf space, both require physical storage)
-automatic categorizing--------(console) Neither (I have to find my digital games like I do physical copies, by looking)
-non-physical DRM---------------------Both

Now admittedly, this is not a full list, but so far it looks like...
Physical- 9
Digital- 3
Both- 3
Neither- 2
Tie- 1

As of now OBJECTIVLY physical copies are winning. SUBJECTIVLY you still like digital and I still like physical.