View Single Post
Old 19 July 2016, 01:58   #36
idrougge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 2,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadOnlyCat View Post
That may be the reason why our reptilian brains attribute value to originals but this does not change the fact that for the originals package, manual and the rest are negligible costs compared to development costs and distribution.

When I was developing for the PS1 in 1998, it already cost barely above one euro to manufacture the whole package, CD pressing, manual and jewel case included.
Moreover, distribution swallowed well above 50% of the retail price. Even the publisher got lucky to get 40%, not to mention anything about the developer.
I wasn't the one who brought up the cost of the original cartridges, that was a certain cat. The cost of original NES games is not a factor of the cost of printing or manufacturing, nor does the cost of distribution or development matter. It's supply and demand, and what fuels demand is nostalgia and reptilian brain.

Attributing value to a licence on a ROM dump is another case of the reptilian brain at work, albeit under the reign of a different set of sentiments. There are no development costs or distribution costs involved here, what with the goods offered being assets that ended their commercial life a bit over twenty years ago. People will buy this out of the same nostalgia that makes others pay half a month's wages for an old game cartridge, save for a small minority that buy it out of some kind of moral obligation towards a commercial enterprise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadOnlyCat
So, no, the reason your originals cost money has nothing to do with the content.
Especially after 30 years when dev costs are long reimbursed, only distribution and license remain. And as you said license value also depends on supply and demand, if there is no demand, it's worthless.
The licence costs Nintendo absolutely nothing in the case of Mario and Zelda. Shigeru Miyamoto isn't paid a single yen for this. Distribution costs would be the same regardless of the licence model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadOnlyCat
I know it perfectly indeed. This is why the NES classic is so cheap.
Because the market, although large would not pay much more for 30 legitimate games. Otherwise the eBay retro market would be long dry for lack of supply if people were willing to pay the current prices of physical retro product (without manuals shall I say! ).

There is demand but not enough supply so costs of physical products are high simply because there is no alternative. Nintendo is actually factoring exactly your points by offering a physical alternative, equally official and guaranteed to work properly at a much reduced price, I am not sure what you are complaining about?
Indeed. It's not the price I object to, it's your reasoning that it's value for money because it has got the Nintendo seal of approval, or that a copy on a flash memory is "original" in any way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadOnlyCat
Well, you can argue all you want about politics but the law applies to everyone and also prevents Nintendo, Konami, EA, etc. as well from infringing on your IP if you had any. If you want these limits gone then they will be gone for you as well and others, including Mike Montgomery, the Cinemaware guys, John Hare, and so on.
Ah, but here I'm not with you. I don't give a fuck about owners. I only care about someone's moral rights, which the law tries to emulate as far as it can. Anyone can own something, but not everyone can create something.

There's no intrinsic value in an official licence for a product, unless you're a lawyer. If someone on Alibaba can make a better NES clone, then who am I to stand in the way of their entrepreneurship? It's not like it's hurting anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadOnlyCat
Your position is easy to defend when your income does not depend on selling your intellectual property but it does not make for something that would work out for small players in the end.
Ah, but my income has always depended on selling my intellectual property. I'm not some kind of GNU supremacist. But that doesn't mean I support every action taken by every copyright holder, nor does it mean I support every possible interpretation of the Bern convention unconditionally. Copyright is a vehicle, not a means to its own end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadOnlyCat
Also, you are sorely overestimating Nintendo's wealth, it is not even in the top 1000 of international companies by market value.
It has climbed a bit recently following pokemon Go, but not that much.
I think you're underestimating ten billion dollars in cash.
http://www.gamesradar.com/nintendo-d...-its-got-bank/
idrougge is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.06045 seconds with 9 queries