AppleQueso wrote:Besides, I can easily share physical games, and Nintendo doesn't seem bothered by that.
Gamesharing: Selling account info to people around the world do they don't have to pay full price.
Lending: Allowing friend to use game for a little while so he/she can then choose to buy the game or not.
See the difference?
@Frag Mortuus
You should really look up Tearaway. That game looks damn amazing.
So replace lending with someone selling used games (as in physical copies). How is it any different? They're both determined by market value and Nintendo gets no money from it regardless.
Violent By Design wrote:
So replace lending with someone selling used games (as in physical copies). How is it any different? They're both determined by market value and Nintendo gets no money from it regardless.
I think he's talking about the practice of account sharing on PSN/etc. Where multiple people pitch in to buy games on a single account, and all log in with that account to download them.
In that case, all of the participants retain access to the games, instead of lending/selling where only one person can use them at a time.
Violent By Design wrote:
So replace lending with someone selling used games (as in physical copies). How is it any different? They're both determined by market value and Nintendo gets no money from it regardless.
I think he's talking about the practice of account sharing on PSN/etc. Where multiple people pitch in to buy games on a single account, and all log in with that account to download them.
In that case, all of the participants retain access to the games, instead of lending/selling where only one person can use them at a time.
AppleQueso wrote:So why aren't Sony and Microsoft tying purchases to a console to prevent this practice? I doubt it's particularly widespread.
Nintendo has no excuse.
More account-centric services tend to allow only a certain number of devices to be associated to an account at a time. It's probably a factor in why the maximum devices for PSN was reduced (though older content still allows for more devices).
Not saying Nintendo has it right or anything, just that it's not something other companies lack a strategy for.
EvilRyu2099 wrote:I'm a partial to Sony, but I think the 3DS blows away the Vita library.. Just MO..
I think this is all going to come down to the kind of handheld games you're into, personally. I could easily make a case for one or the other over the opposite, based on the games you like.
Let strength be granted, so the world might be mended...so the world might be mended.
EvilRyu2099 wrote:I'm a partial to Sony, but I think the 3DS blows away the Vita library.. Just MO..
I think this is all going to come down to the kind of handheld games you're into, personally. I could easily make a case for one or the other over the opposite, based on the games you like.
EvilRyu2099 wrote:I'm a partial to Sony, but I think the 3DS blows away the Vita library.. Just MO..
I think this is all going to come down to the kind of handheld games you're into, personally. I could easily make a case for one or the other over the opposite, based on the games you like.
No I like the top titles in the Vita library moreso than the 3DS library.. But I think this is a situation where quantity rules over quality for me.. Plus games like Fire Emblem, Pokemon and Monster Hunter 3/4 are almost if not on par with the P4 Goldens, Ragnorak Odysseys, Dragon's Crowns, Ys and Gravity Rushs that the Vita offers..
