Not inevitable if people fought back.. but people keep telling companies this shit is ok by paying them to screw everyone over. Companies used to have to replace your bugged cartridge with a patched one or risk backlash and profit losses.

[–] pycorax@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

I'm willing to bet that the majority of people don't really care about this. If they did, you'd see GoG do wildly better than Steam does. People like DRM and the convenience with having your library digitally available with the ease of installation, they just don't like badly implemented DRM.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Remember when people lost their shit over an Xbox console being all digital distribution and no ability to sell used games like 10 years ago maybe?

https://kotaku.com/that-xbox-one-reveal-sure-was-a-disaster-huh-509192266

Nintendo fans are fucking masochists.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 29 points 1 day ago

Nintendo sucks and all, but Xbox wanted the One to not work at all unless it was online.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

People also lost their shit over the PSP Go being digital distro only in a physical handheld console, and lost their shit so hard that Sony of all people walked it back with the Vita and built cartridges back into the spec. (And it became retroactively excusable once it was discovered how easily the PSP/Go could be hacked, and suddenly the Go was the desirable model for emulation and, er, backups. But that's neither here nor there. Under its intended use, within its original lifespan, it was a stupid idea.)

If you ask me the entire point of a game console is to be a dedicated platform that you stick games in and it always works. If I wanted to fuck around with downloadable only content, games that are only keycodes, patches, day 1 DLC, always-online DRM, and the inevitable day the servers all go dark I'd just game on PC. Which, come to think of it, in these modern times is exactly what I do anyway. I have game systems dating all the way back to the Atari VCS which I can to this very day if I feel like it slap a cartridge or disk in and they play. To me, there is immense value in that. Without that, there's really no need for the "real hardware experience" for me. I can just emulate if any title comes out that I truly give enough of a shit about that I must play it. Anything else is just selling you a rental, but at full price. I find that immensely distasteful.

So I have zero interest in the Switch 2, and thus it will be the first Nintendo console in history I don't own, or aim to own (I do not have a Virtual Boy, much to my shame and embarrassment.) I imagine I'm not the only one. Nintendo's been trying very hard to lose the plot, which for a company as profitable and famous as they are takes a real concerted effort. Congratulations to them, then, if that's the goal -- What we are witnessing here is very possibly the beginning of the end for big N.

[–] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I do not have a Virtual Boy, much to my shame and embarrassment.

Yes, but you do own the best console for playing Virtual Boy games, the 3DS. Red Viper is really good now.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

And I also have a VR headset and VirtualBoyGo if I really feel like giving myself an authentic headache.

[–] emb@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Not to defend Nintendo much here, but the situation with game-key-cards is at least better than that. You can freely trade, give away, resell them like any physical cart.

It's a step up from digital in terms of freedom, but a step down in convenience (cart has to be in the system).

Compared to real, physical, data-on-the-cart media though, these are a definite downgrade.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago

Someday we’ll find out that all the Switch 2s actually peer together and create a blockchain to track ownership

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And at least Microsoft was toying With letting you transfer your license which would’ve created a secondary market. We don’t even have that!

[–] steal_your_face@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think the Nintendo game key cards are tied to the physical game cards so they can be sold or transferred to new owners.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Of course, I’m just talking about how the digital licensing landscape ended up shaking out. Nintendo also sells all their games digital and you can’t transfer those. Hell until the switch 2 you didn’t even have a unified account across devices.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

Nintendo also sells all their games digital and you can’t transfer those.

Yet.

They've advertised Virtual Game Cards as a value-added feature to let your friends borrow games, but I'd bet good money they built out that infrastructure to comply with the potential for the EU to require used sales on digital.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Couple things there.

There are Virtual Game Cards, purchased and downloaded digitally from the eShop. These can now be traded, sold, gifted, loaned, etc. to other friends, which was not previously possible. (This could possibly require an NSO subscription, but I’m not clear if that’s true at all.)

There are physical game cartridges, which contain the actual game on them, and (from what I’ve heard) most games will be distributed this way.

Then, there are also physical carts that contain only the virtual game license file, thus that you have to possess the physical cart in order to download or play the game. Apparently, there are Switch 1 games like this already, but they are rare.

With the introduction of Virtual Game Cards, it is no longer possible (even on Switch 1) to play more than one copy of a game online at the same time, even with a min NSO Family subscription.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 17 hours ago

But it does allow you to transfer/sell games purchased from the eShop. That seems good to me, no?

[–] CidVicious@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

I'm willing to bet that 95% of their customers do not have an issue with this. Probably the majority don't even realize that someone could have an issue with this. People are already very used to having to do big downloads with games and a lot of switch 1 games were already requiring half of the game to be downloaded due to large cart costs. Also tbh I don't think it's really a preservation issue as long as piracy exists.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Consumers lost that fight decades ago with horse armor.