Adding one point to the current flow of conversation.
Regarding the claim often heard overseas that seems to have some legitimacy:
“It’s unfair that something you bought becomes unplayable when the service ends.”
As a player myself, I can understand this perspective,
and I sometimes feel the same way.
But, well…
Do physical items outside of digital products last forever?
Most of the time, they don’t, right?
Physical things always have a lifespan and will eventually break.
Digital products, on the other hand, generally don’t have a lifespan.
This is one major fundamental factor.
Personally, I think Nintendo’s moves have the following significance:
・Keycards
→ Measures against illegal copying, reducing the risk of holding inventory
・Raising game prices
→ Waving the flag so that game companies, struggling with recent inflation, can raise prices
・Terminating online services for older hardware
→ Setting a “lifespan.”
This makes it easier for companies to re-release games on new hardware.
To put it further, it creates the job of “porting.”
I feel that these moves are largely aimed at protecting the gaming industry and the digital entertainment industry.
It might be a bit too optimistic of a view,
but the fact is that because Nintendo takes the lead, other companies can more easily follow suit to protect themselves.
Do you think a company that’s already made that much profit
would do this just to make even more money? lol
Even if they stopped selling anything right now,
they have enough cash reserves to support all their current employees until retirement! lol
(It’s so incredible it’s almost ridiculous lol)
I feel that their focus is on how to move in a way that protects the industry.
That’s the sense I get.
Source link
