So I can't buy Minish Cap on the eShop?

#11Binba442Posted 5/3/2013 7:36:38 AM
There is almost noway to get Minish cap with money going to nintendo, Second hand, money goes to seller, Emulation, money goes to no one.

LET ME GIVE YOU MY MONEY D:
#12AlustarPosted 5/3/2013 7:51:03 AM
I just started playing Minish cap on my 3DS... I have the original cart but never finished it but I determined! This time I will complete it!
#13lanifPosted 5/3/2013 8:04:55 AM
I have boxed copies of the oracle games too fun time i may have to play through them again
---
Thalia, Guardian of Thraben sometimes she hits me first!!!!
#14MarsfordPosted 5/3/2013 9:04:11 AM
Ralala888 posted...
I do agree, though, there is no reason NOT to sell them in the eShop.


Um, yes there is. That was the whole point >_>
---
Why are you NOT listening to White Skies when you could be listening to White Skies?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MDhdP94TKc
#15CompassPosted 5/3/2013 11:16:26 AM
Marsford posted...
Ralala888 posted...
I do agree, though, there is no reason NOT to sell them in the eShop.


Um, yes there is. That was the whole point >_>

This. You are being punished for not believing in Nints when the 3DS was a fledgling little runt. Deal with it.
#16_Izanagi_Posted 5/3/2013 11:27:51 AM
Marsford posted...
Ralala888 posted...
I do agree, though, there is no reason NOT to sell them in the eShop.


Um, yes there is. That was the whole point >_>


Don't be absurd. Nintendo is a company. They want money. They will get money if they release Minish Cap on eshop. I have Minish Cap for the GBA in my DS. I'd still pay for an eshop version. We will get GBA games on eshop. The only question is when.
---
"The Arcana is the means by which all is revealed."
''Typical entitled internet user.''ADHDguitar ''Your entitled to shut the f*** up.''Too_Cool_Rick
#17The Hye Circus(Topic Creator)Posted 5/5/2013 8:35:37 PM
Binba442
Posted 5/3/2013 11:36:38 AM
message detail
quote

There is almost noway to get Minish cap with money going to nintendo, Second hand, money goes to seller, Emulation, money goes to no one.


This kills me. I remember someone posting how proud they were for buying Chrono Trigger after paying 80 dollars for a SNES cartridge. That's just pointless. If the money doesn't go to the developers, it's in many ways the same as pirating.

Is it more legal in terms of the law? Yes. Is that what the debate over piracy is? No.
---
"Cats are kind of like girls. If they come and talk to you it's great. But if you try to talk to them it doesn't always go so well" -Shigeru Miyamoto
#18IHeartMetroidPosted 5/5/2013 11:30:11 PM
" If the money doesn't go to the developers, it's in many ways the same as pirating. "


With all due respect, the only people who make this argument are the people who have no idea about how businesses operate, or about the law of rarity.

Let me clue you in.

Say I'm a game developer. I make a game.

* <- this is the game.

The retailer pays me for the game. I get my money.

Now * is in the hands of the retailer.

The retailer takes * and sells it to a buyer. There is still one *. And of that one *, I got paid for it.

Now buyer 1 decides to sell it back to the retailer for a significant loss. The buyer loses 50% of what he paid, there is still one *, and that one * I got paid for. Buyer 1 no longer has a game to play and if he wants to buy it he needs to buy another copy.

Buyer 2 buys that game. He pays the retailer whatever the retailer is charging, and now that one * game is no longer in the hands of Buyer 1 or the retailer, but now Buyer 2. That game that I sold, and that I got paid for. The loss is still on the side of Buyer 1, because he no longer has a game.

So for every single game that is sitting out on the shelf, whether it's new or used, I still got my money for that game, and if Buyer 1 and Buyer 2 both want to have a game, then they still have to buy a copy that the supply chain ensured I got paid for. The law of rarity clearly states that every game on the shelf follows this exact same line.

You could say to me, "but what if I bought a new game?" Yes, you could. And the developer would have gotten the same exact amount of money as if you had bought a used game- it just would have been on a different part of the distribution line. When you buy a new game, you become Buyer 1 instead of Buyer 2. But whether or not you're Buyer 1, Buyer 2, Buyer 3 or Buyer 4, each game that is sitting on a shelf represents a sum of money that went to the developers.

Piracy, on the other hand, is a completely different ball of wax.

Let's say that Buyer 1 buys the game. He keeps the game and posts it on the internet. Now there is no longer that one game that was paid for- if fifty people download that game, it is now in the hands of fifty people, none of whom are utilizing a copy that adhered to the buy-gain-sell-loss principle that was part of the first paragraph. Buyer 1 gets to maintain his copy while everyone else is utilizing copies that nobody at all paid for.

This is why piracy is horrible, why it is nothing like buying used, and why people who make that argument are just not thinking clearly.
---
Currently ignoring 5 users.
If I haven't responded to a post directly addressed to me, that's probably why.
#19CressDXXPosted 5/5/2013 11:37:12 PM
Planetvideogame posted...
Aren't GBA games coming to the Wii U eShop soon?


yes.
You will have to pay twice for it..
first for buying them on Wii U, then some more for transfering over it to the 3DS...
---
3DS FC: 4425-1804-8511
XBOX360 GT: CressDX
#20CompassPosted 5/6/2013 1:48:31 PM
IHeartMetroid posted...
" If the money doesn't go to the developers, it's in many ways the same as pirating. "


With all due respect, the only people who make this argument are the people who have no idea about how businesses operate, or about the law of rarity.

Let me clue you in.

Say I'm a game developer. I make a game.

* <- this is the game.

The retailer pays me for the game. I get my money.

Now * is in the hands of the retailer.

The retailer takes * and sells it to a buyer. There is still one *. And of that one *, I got paid for it.

Now buyer 1 decides to sell it back to the retailer for a significant loss. The buyer loses 50% of what he paid, there is still one *, and that one * I got paid for. Buyer 1 no longer has a game to play and if he wants to buy it he needs to buy another copy.

Buyer 2 buys that game. He pays the retailer whatever the retailer is charging, and now that one * game is no longer in the hands of Buyer 1 or the retailer, but now Buyer 2. That game that I sold, and that I got paid for. The loss is still on the side of Buyer 1, because he no longer has a game.

So for every single game that is sitting out on the shelf, whether it's new or used, I still got my money for that game, and if Buyer 1 and Buyer 2 both want to have a game, then they still have to buy a copy that the supply chain ensured I got paid for. The law of rarity clearly states that every game on the shelf follows this exact same line.

You could say to me, "but what if I bought a new game?" Yes, you could. And the developer would have gotten the same exact amount of money as if you had bought a used game- it just would have been on a different part of the distribution line. When you buy a new game, you become Buyer 1 instead of Buyer 2. But whether or not you're Buyer 1, Buyer 2, Buyer 3 or Buyer 4, each game that is sitting on a shelf represents a sum of money that went to the developers.

Piracy, on the other hand, is a completely different ball of wax.

Let's say that Buyer 1 buys the game. He keeps the game and posts it on the internet. Now there is no longer that one game that was paid for- if fifty people download that game, it is now in the hands of fifty people, none of whom are utilizing a copy that adhered to the buy-gain-sell-loss principle that was part of the first paragraph. Buyer 1 gets to maintain his copy while everyone else is utilizing copies that nobody at all paid for.

This is why piracy is horrible, why it is nothing like buying used, and why people who make that argument are just not thinking clearly.

It's not that they're not thinking clearly, it's that they're ignorant little industry fanboy bratlings far too young to have had any education on even basic economics. Good luck getting through to them. I'd tap out now while you still have your sanity...