3 ms·
If you read my comment, I said I'd pay for it either way. At that point while I might be technically pirating, I don't think I am ethically.
by rkangel 3y ago
If you read my comment, I said I'd pay for it either way. At that point while I might be technically pirating, I don't think I am ethically.
- johnchristopher 3y agoNo, you wrote (emphasis mine): > Either way I'll probably buy it [..] If you don't for sure buy it then there is no debating playing it on deck unless what you are debating is playing the game or not.
- setr 3y agoHe’s not debating on whether to pay for the game, he’s debating on where he’ll get the best experience with it. It just happens to be that one of those options requires pirating game instead of paying for it.
- johnchristopher 3y agoYeah, probably.
- jghn 3y agoYou're also not paying for their hardware. Like Apple, since they own both sides of the equation, the hardware is part of their pricing model. Unless you also own a switch, in which case disregard!
- rkangel 3y agoI do in fact own a Switch (as I wrote above). I would have thought that the console doesn't have much effect on the financial model though. The margin on the console has to be fairly low, and they sell many games for each console sale. I've always assumed that the vast majority of their profit was from the game sales.
- jghn 3y agoSorry, missed that part :( TBH I don't know. Apple is obviously a hardware company that happens to make software. As you say, Nintendo does sell software as you say. But there's plenty of people out there who buy the devices for a couple of games. The people that always just want whatever the latest Mario Kart or Smash Bros is, or whatever. That's why I've figured they view themselves as a bit of a hybrid. If they viewed themselves as a software company I'd think they would be less fanatical about having their own hardware.