Until Nintendo stops repairing them. If I remember correctly, they no longer repair anything from Nintendo 64 or before. So, in a couple of generations, unless they allow you to transfer your Wii Shop Channel to whatever new system they make...say good-bye to your Virtual Console games!
Oh, but then, I'm sure they'll let you re-buy them on the new console...
I think in this case it's just that \. is for nerds, and many nerds are gamers. And many of all those eat pizza (guessing, no numbers to back it up). \. is just reporting on video game related stuff.
I don't think it has anything to really do with the morality of stealing. Basically, they should be figuring "how much will it cost to implement so-and-so piracy prevention" vs. "how much money would actually be lost not implementing so-and-so piracy prevention".
How much does it cost? I imagine a lot of this copy protection costs a good chunk of change. But does implementing that REALLY get more people to buy the game? There are people who would never buy the game and then there are people who will get around whatever copy protection in on the game.
I'm sure that by enabling copy protection, some companies stand to lose money. Customers that have had problems with games the company released previously may not buy future games. And then there are the geeks who won't buy the game on principle because there's copy protection.
Maybe it does make more sense financially, I don't know the actual numbers. I just hope it's something they look at. This kind of stuff is mostly bad PR with the customer base these days.
Apparently you didn't read the article. If someone's seeds blew into my yard, I'm then forced to do some sort of business with them. I can use the seeds and hope I don't get sued, or take a lot of time and money and try and sort out my seeds from Monsanto seeds.
Even if I didn't do anything like that and I left it up to the lawyers, someone else's mistake (not keeping the seeds in a closed environment) is affecting me.
Unfortunately, VGChartz is really the best that we (the consumer) have access to. NPD seems to be locking up its numbers more and more to make a profit off them.
There are a LOT of people that make terrible decisions that aren't in jail. I'm sure there are many in jail that do make bad decisions, but there are some that haven't.
Except that this wasn't material given to Kotaku as information (as far as anyone knows; not sure about the source of the rumor). If it was information that was released early by Sony, then I could see Sony have *some* merit to asking the information not be published.
That could be argued. This is NOT good press for Sony. What happens when the next website prints something that Sony doesn't like? While difficult to do, it's made me think even less of them.
Kotaku can report rumors all it wants to, as long as it reports that they received this information as a rumor.
Yeah, this is a little strange, but maybe people can show a little restraint and just wait for the stores to get more PS3s? I play games a lot but if I'm gonna save a few hundred bucks by waiting for the stores to get the system as opposed to buying it off eBay, I'm gonna wait.
Sadly, this just caters to an impatient society...
These really seem to be more examples of privacy rather than censorship.
Yes, there is certain information that is entitled to be kept private (SSN, for example). However, there is a lot of information about me that, whether I like it or not, can be given to the public if someone finds it out about me. I can't prevent people from having an opinion of me, or saying that they saw me chug a bottle of JD in front of a bunch of AA members.
There should honestly be no subject that is so unlawful or taboo that it can't be discussed in a civilized manner, and I think that's part of the issue here. I have the RIGHT to discuss (again, in a civilized manner) any subject I want to. Do I want to discuss what a crappy job Bush is doing? Or how much Sony is screwing up the launch of the PS3? Or the secret ingredients in a pop? I may not have all the information or even the right information, but it's my RIGHT to discuss it and have an opinion on it.
The fire example doesn't really do a good job of saying that "some censorship is okay".
...I guess my question would be why does any country have to govern the internet? The internet being what it is I find it kinda hard to believe that any one country could or should have control.
Slashdot Mirror
Go to http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83/. They have something to try and pass what you've suggested. Let's hope.
I'm sure it'll sell just as well as the EU version of Win XP that didn't include WMP...
Until Nintendo stops repairing them. If I remember correctly, they no longer repair anything from Nintendo 64 or before. So, in a couple of generations, unless they allow you to transfer your Wii Shop Channel to whatever new system they make...say good-bye to your Virtual Console games! Oh, but then, I'm sure they'll let you re-buy them on the new console...
It was probably Zelda 2. I know the first NP had Mario 2 and maps for the second quest in Zelda.
Except anyone with half a brain would probably get a second opinion on something as big as that.
It's not anything crazy, it's just attached to the serial number for your Wii.
Example?
Money can be exchanged for goods and services!
That'd be a pretty dumbass boss. If they're that dumb, would you want to be working for them anyway?
I think in this case it's just that \. is for nerds, and many nerds are gamers. And many of all those eat pizza (guessing, no numbers to back it up). \. is just reporting on video game related stuff.
I don't think it has anything to really do with the morality of stealing. Basically, they should be figuring "how much will it cost to implement so-and-so piracy prevention" vs. "how much money would actually be lost not implementing so-and-so piracy prevention".
How much does it cost? I imagine a lot of this copy protection costs a good chunk of change. But does implementing that REALLY get more people to buy the game? There are people who would never buy the game and then there are people who will get around whatever copy protection in on the game.
I'm sure that by enabling copy protection, some companies stand to lose money. Customers that have had problems with games the company released previously may not buy future games. And then there are the geeks who won't buy the game on principle because there's copy protection.
Maybe it does make more sense financially, I don't know the actual numbers. I just hope it's something they look at. This kind of stuff is mostly bad PR with the customer base these days.
Farmers are not forced to do business with them
Apparently you didn't read the article. If someone's seeds blew into my yard, I'm then forced to do some sort of business with them. I can use the seeds and hope I don't get sued, or take a lot of time and money and try and sort out my seeds from Monsanto seeds.
Even if I didn't do anything like that and I left it up to the lawyers, someone else's mistake (not keeping the seeds in a closed environment) is affecting me.
I couldn't agree more with your opinion.
Is there a half-way decent ISP that you could go through that wouldn't go through AT&T?
Unfortunately, VGChartz is really the best that we (the consumer) have access to. NPD seems to be locking up its numbers more and more to make a profit off them.
There are a LOT of people that make terrible decisions that aren't in jail. I'm sure there are many in jail that do make bad decisions, but there are some that haven't.
Is there any ISP you know that doesn't make such wacko terms in their ToS?
Except that this wasn't material given to Kotaku as information (as far as anyone knows; not sure about the source of the rumor). If it was information that was released early by Sony, then I could see Sony have *some* merit to asking the information not be published.
That could be argued. This is NOT good press for Sony. What happens when the next website prints something that Sony doesn't like? While difficult to do, it's made me think even less of them. Kotaku can report rumors all it wants to, as long as it reports that they received this information as a rumor.
If you don't tell someone about it, what does that make it?
Yes, but to my knowledge, they don't keep track of what it's the package and how often you send mail to someone.
You can copy save files, though, IF you have the update.
Yeah, this is a little strange, but maybe people can show a little restraint and just wait for the stores to get more PS3s? I play games a lot but if I'm gonna save a few hundred bucks by waiting for the stores to get the system as opposed to buying it off eBay, I'm gonna wait.
Sadly, this just caters to an impatient society...
These really seem to be more examples of privacy rather than censorship.
Yes, there is certain information that is entitled to be kept private (SSN, for example). However, there is a lot of information about me that, whether I like it or not, can be given to the public if someone finds it out about me. I can't prevent people from having an opinion of me, or saying that they saw me chug a bottle of JD in front of a bunch of AA members.
There should honestly be no subject that is so unlawful or taboo that it can't be discussed in a civilized manner, and I think that's part of the issue here. I have the RIGHT to discuss (again, in a civilized manner) any subject I want to. Do I want to discuss what a crappy job Bush is doing? Or how much Sony is screwing up the launch of the PS3? Or the secret ingredients in a pop? I may not have all the information or even the right information, but it's my RIGHT to discuss it and have an opinion on it.
The fire example doesn't really do a good job of saying that "some censorship is okay".
...I guess my question would be why does any country have to govern the internet? The internet being what it is I find it kinda hard to believe that any one country could or should have control.