At my wit's end with Nintendo. Any advice?

[Calemyr]

Maybe this isn't the right place to post this, but I figure maybe someone's got an idea of what I can do from here.

If anyone hasn't heard, the most recent patch for the Nintendo 3DS is a pirate hunter. If you have the markers of custom firmware on your device, it will brick your system. Here's the fun part: the markers persist after a factory reset.

Three months ago, I bought a refurbished 3DS XL from Gamestop. I have not hacked it in anyway. All the games on it were purchased through the e-shop. Downloaded the latest patch this week and now I've got a brick. Gamestop won't help me in any way because it's past the one month return policy. Nintendo won't help me in any way because the error means my device was modded. I just cannot believe there is no resolution to this situation.

Again, forgive me if I am out of place to bellyache over this trivial piece of injustice here, but this is really, really bothering me.

[druid91]

Have you got a large pile of money? Could maybe Sue Nintendo. :smalltongue:

[Erloas]

The fault clearly seems to be on Gamestop for selling a modded device. I'm not terribly surprised neither company will do anything to help, neither really seem to be customer first.

I'm assuming you've only talked to the local Gamestop? Depending who you talked to they might not be able to actually do anything. I have no idea how good corporate would be about that sort of thing, but talking to someone above a store manager might help. If you can call them out on social media it might help too...

Otherwise about your only hope is with the modding community.

[houlio]

Have you got a large pile of money? Could maybe Sue Nintendo. :smalltongue:

That’s usually a bad idea along the lines of starting a land war in Asia or making a deal with a Sicilian when death is on the line.

[GloatingSwine]

Check your local consumer rights. Even second hand or refurbished items may carry some form of guarantee longer than 30 days. (They certainly do in the UK)

However, anything you are entitled to will certainly be from the retailer not the manufacturer.

[Rodin]

The immediate problem is that neither company knows that you were not the one to mod the console, and with the system now bricked you have no way to prove that either unless Nintendo kept the records of when the modded software was installed from when they bricked it. I find that unlikely.

Seems like a crappy situation, but I don't see anything you can do about it. It's certainly going to make me think twice about buying a used console in future, because that is a seriously horrible policy from Nintendo. Bricking the system with no warning seems unnecessarily harsh, and your specific situation could easily be sorted by the patch forcing a factory reset and telling you why it's doing so, and THEN bricking the system if you mod the system again afterwards.

[Calemyr]

It's a messy situation, to be sure. I took it to the supervisors of Gamestop's corporate support, and the best they'll do is give me the trade-in value of a defective device. Probably $5 or something. Took it to the supervisors of Nintendo's support line 7 times (spent about ten hours on hold over the last three days) and the conclusion is always the same - modded = no good, no appeal.

The thing is, to my mind, this is definitely Nintendo's fault, not Gamestop. Gamestop did their due diligence cleaning up the device, but Nintendo's torpedo patch targets markers not cleaned by factory reset. What more could Gamestop do, other than show some blasted compassion to the collateral casualties?

I don't want to give a <redacted> dime to either company ever again. I guess you could call me Rock, because the only path I see is going full pirate.

Edit: Not seriously, mind you, but I have to use custom firmware to get my 3DS to start. Exactly what the Torpedo Patch was meant to stop.

[Bohandas]

My suggestion is to blackball Nintendo. I know I cartainly won't be buying any more of their stuff if they're using DRM.

Also, as I've said on numerous threads, never let your systems update themselves. Especially not something like a Nintendo DS where it's purely for gaming and security isn't important (even though security concerns are a paper tiger anyway. Installing programs that break your system and spy on you in order to protect yourself from hackers and computer viruses seems like it defeats the purpose)

[Sermil]

Huge longshot but... contact your local gaming press? (Kotaku or whatever)

Stories about "How Big Gaming Company X Screwed Over the Little Guy" are pretty common fodder on those sites, so they might be interested in a new angle on it. And companies don't like bad press cycles; they might give you a refund or replacement just to make the press go away. This has the additional advantage that they might try to be a little more careful in the future; they might be forced to actually hear you.

As I said: huge longshot. The press people may not care. They may care but they might have already published a story about the issue. They might publish your story but Nintendo / Gamestop might not want to give in. (FWIW -- I think you'd have a better shot with Gamestop; Nintendo seems to care a lot less about bad press.)

Well, it's a thought.

[veti]

To my mind, Gamestop are the ones at fault here. They sold you a device which they (I presume) said had been restored to factory default conditions, when clearly it hadn't. Maybe they didn't know that it hadn't, but incompetence is no excuse. If they don't know enough to check for modding (which is clearly possible, since the patch figured it out), then they should damn' well learn their trade better before they do it again.

This isn't an issue of returns or warranties, it's straightforward misrepresentation on their part. Nintendo is being unhelpful, but they're within their rights and I can see their point of view. It's Gamestop who have screwed you.

[deuterio12]

To my mind, Gamestop are the ones at fault here. They sold you a device which they (I presume) said had been restored to factory default conditions, when clearly it hadn't. Maybe they didn't know that it hadn't, but incompetence is no excuse. If they don't know enough to check for modding (which is clearly possible, since the patch figured it out), then they should damn' well learn their trade better before they do it again.

This isn't an issue of returns or warranties, it's straightforward misrepresentation on their part. Nintendo is being unhelpful, but they're within their rights and I can see their point of view. It's Gamestop who have screwed you.

This. If it truly had been reset to factory default then there should've been no trouble.

Besides that's what you get for buying 2nd(3rd? Xth?) hand stuff. You wanted to save money for the risk of lower quality and well, the risk came out to bite you. You could've bought a brand new console to be sure there would be no such problem, but choose to be cheap and it backfired. Nintendo is not responsible for you trying to skip the price of an actual console out of the factory.

[Forum Explorer]

Try sending a letter to Nintendo's sales department explaining that you will no longer buy any Nintendo products because of what happened. Tell them the whole story, and how you got bricked without any warning, and how you won't buy Nintendo stuff if it might be taken away at a moments notice without due cause.

(Though it won't help to say so, and might cause trouble, you can even explain that you now feel your only option to get Nintendo stuff is to steal it. If they are going to treat you like a thief, then why should you pay them money for their product?)

Though the important part is try and contact the Sales department. Supports lines are used to dealing with customers and are much more jaded. Someone else might be more receptive.

[lord_khaine]

Am i the only one thinking that this is a very hamfisted attempt at, not the pirates, but the 2nd hand market?

[TheSummoner]

I doubt you're going to have much luck trying to get help from Nintendo. Further, you're misplacing the blame by being "at your wit's end" with them. You bought a refurbished 3DS from Gamestop. Meaning you bought a system that Nintendo didn't see a penny of profit from from a company whose core business model is
New thing gets released at $X. People buy it new for that price.
Offer much less than $X to buy it back once people finish playing the game or get bored of the system.
Sell thing to someone else at a price slightly less than $X. Pocket the profits and the people who made the thing get nothing.

You're the one who took the chance buying a refurbished model instead of getting it new in box because you wanted to save money. It's unfortunate that you got screwed over, but Gamestop is the one who sold you a modded system that violated the terms of service and thus is unfit for purpose. As far as Nintendo is concerned, if you had bought the thing new, you wouldn't be having this problem.

My advice? Call Gamestop's support and refuse to hang up until they help you. If the person you're talking to says they can't do anything, (politely) demand to speak to someone higher up and continue to escalate it. The higher ups don't want to waste their time dealing with customer complaints and there comes a point where it's easier to just give you what you want than to deal with it. Be polite, but be a pain in the butt. That and never buy from Gamestop again.

Edit: Alternative, less honest and possibly riskier idea: Buy another 3DS from Gamestop and return the bricked one using the receipt from the new one claiming that the new one stopped working. Possibly risky because I have no clue what, if any measures Gamestop uses to verify that sort of thing, but in the worst case scenario, even if they catch you trying to refund the first 3DS, the refund on the second 3DS should still be valid as long as it's done within the allowed 30 day period. I'd also imagine your average Gamestop employee doesn't care beyond the minimum required to keep himself out of trouble.


Huge longshot but... contact your local gaming press? (Kotaku or whatever)

This is pretty bad advice. "Gaming press" is an unfunny joke that no one takes seriously.

[Otomodachi]

Meaning you bought a system that Nintendo didn't see a penny of profit from from a company whose core business model is
[

Uhm, that's a complete lie. They didn't profit from THAT TRANSACTION but the device had already sold in order to have been refurbished. Nintendo already GOT their money. Whatever your feelings about Gamestop doesn't change that this statement is 100% false.

[GloatingSwine]

Am i the only one thinking that this is a very hamfisted attempt at, not the pirates, but the 2nd hand market?

How would this be an attempt at the second hand market? It's a firmware update which disables machines which have had custom firmwares loaded.

That's not a normal feature of the second hand market.

OP: Your problem is with Gamespot. Gamespot sold you a modified 3DS. If you can prove that the device was modified in the state it was sold to you, you can actually probably sue them in small claims court (because selling modified consoles is naughty in the eyes of the law, so is selling goods that are not as described) for at the very least the price you paid or cost of a legit replacement.

However, check your local consumer rights first. You may have consumer rights even in the case of second hand purchases if they were made from an established retailer rather than a private individual, which would be less costly even than small claims.

[TheSummoner]

Uhm, that's a complete lie. They didn't profit from THAT TRANSACTION but the device had already sold in order to have been refurbished. Nintendo already GOT their money. Whatever your feelings about Gamestop doesn't change that this statement is 100% false.

And if you want to split hairs over my phrasing and call me a liar, Calemyr's 3DS is still modded. Whoever did the modding doesn't change that the warranty is void.

If you'd rather stick to what's relevant, then Calemyr's money went to Gamestop. He's their customer, not Nintendo's since as I said, they didn't see a penny of profit off the sale. The 3DS (presumably) was not marked as having been modded when it was purchased, and doesn't work now as a result. It's Gamestop' s responsibility for selling a device that wasn't as advertised or fit for purpose.

[Keltest]

And if you want to split hairs over my phrasing and call me a liar, Calemyr's 3DS is still modded. Whoever did the modding doesn't change that the warranty is void.

If you'd rather stick to what's relevant, then Calemyr's money went to Gamestop. He's their customer, not Nintendo's since as I said, they didn't see a penny of profit off the sale. The 3DS (presumably) was not marked as having been modded when it was purchased, and doesn't work now as a result. It's Gamestop' s responsibility for selling a device that wasn't as advertised or fit for purpose.

Im inclined to agree. Its their responsibility to make sure that their products are fit for sale.

[Otomodachi]

And if you want to split hairs over my phrasing and call me a liar, Calemyr's 3DS is still modded. Whoever did the modding doesn't change that the warranty is void.

If you'd rather stick to what's relevant, then Calemyr's money went to Gamestop. He's their customer, not Nintendo's since as I said, they didn't see a penny of profit off the sale. The 3DS (presumably) was not marked as having been modded when it was purchased, and doesn't work now as a result. It's Gamestop' s responsibility for selling a device that wasn't as advertised or fit for purpose.

Didn't call you a liar, called one specific statement you made a lie. Don't really have an opinion on the rest of this topic, except to point out that consumer rights in this situation vary wildly state-to-state in the USA alone let alone in different countries, and so the responsibility will differ by location.

[Calemyr]

For the record: Installing/updating the custom firmware on the machine did the trick. I've got full functionality and even a little extra. Cheat codes, primarily, as I'm not actually going to go pirate. I mean, don't get me wrong, I won't be using the e-shop or Gamestop again, I won't give them one penny I don't have to, but I'm still going to pay for the games I play. This whole thing is me throwing a hissy-fit about what's right and wrong and I would be a hypocrite to then do wrong right back. Still, there's a nice gallows satisfaction that my only avenue to escape the anti-custom-firmware patch was to get into the custom firmware scene...

The killer is that I was never entirely certain the device was modded before this. And I'm even less convinced now that I did it myself. The Boot.Firm file was simply missing from the memory card, with none of the files I had to add myself when I installed the custom firmware. A sick fluke chain of events? Maybe. But Nintendo was adamant that this error could only mean it was hacked and thus categorically refused to help.

[OracleofWuffing]

Well, er, if it's any consolation, I feel I should thank you for bringing all this to my attention before I went and updated my 3DS so I could trade pokemon. :smallredface:

Been trying to think of how to see this, so sorry if this gets a bit rambly. It's a bit of a problem if Nintendo's Factory Reset would have allowed you to get a "full" clean-slate 3DS like how anyone who doesn't know about softmods would expect it to work. If one could revert a system to its earliest firmware with no strings attached, that means any patch that Nintendo puts out with any anti-arbitrary-code-execution measure is ultimately toothless, as one could just "Downgrade" their system when it is convenient for them, and "Upgrade" whenever they need to. So, they have to make a choice between having the power to try to stop malicious* code when it's discovered, or they can hope they thought of everything and did everything right the first time around and not be able to push any updates out unless they want to do a full product recall and replacement (and even then, that's not gonna work).

So, here's GameStop- well, most any reseller- and there's not many ways they can really do much about things. They can't tell if a 3DS has custom firmware code on it unless they, too, use homebrew software to check if homebrew itself exists on the system, or Nintendo releases a tool that lets them check said firmware. Initially, Nintendo releasing such a tool sounds like a good solution to the situation, but in order for everything to work together, Nintendo now needs to trust every reseller ever to not redistribute their tool or use their tool maliciously. It takes a single bad egg to ruin it for everybody, and resellers practically grow on trees. Nevermind the paperwork for Nintendo to determine which party might be a "legitimate" reseller or an "illegitimate" one, or the burden of the reseller to share training on how to use the tool properly.

I think it goes without saying that you, as a consumer, should not be at fault in the situation. You bought an item that had a Factory Reset performed on it, and a reasonable person would assume that a Factory Reset would Reset a device to its settings as it came out from the Factory. GameStop did their diligence by ensuring the device worked and that the Factory Reset was ran. There... May or may not be a concern of Nintendo using a misleading name for the Factory Reset function, but I don't think there's much fruit to that discussion if it exists- the exchange of money was between you and GameStop, so involving Nintendo in this likely will need to get GameStop to stand up to Nintendo for the issue first.

You've already noted the irony in that the solution most reasonable to you is to use custom firmware to defeat the patch made to block the custom firmware. Which is a fair decision. Yet, the system (not the 3DS, but the Producer/Developer>Retail>Consumer system) is simply made on the assumption that any malicious code, if found, is detected and removed or prevented before the product can be resold. The onus, in a sense, is on the individual that installed the custom firmware in the first place and did not disclose this information to GameStop. Which I really hate saying, because I really like my own No Guard Sheer Cold Ninjask and friends, but in terms of "who started this whole mess," and "who knows how to fix it," it does start and end right there. Unfortunately, requiring a paper trail miles long for resellers to send a swat team to if code is discovered months after the sale is... Well, I'm certain they'd be glad to have the information to resell to third parties, but ultimately unfeasible for the purposes of providing a meaningful solution.

Thing is, I'm unsure if the competing consoles have a reasonable alternative to what Nintendo does in this situation. The system (again, not the 3DS, the Nintendo>Retail>You system) may just simply be broke in this regard. I guess if there is a "But it's getting better," it's that with the Switch's implementation of Game Maker Studio, it's getting easier for people that want to develop software for a Nintendo product to do so without resorting to software hacks that Nintendo's trying to stop with a chunk of their firmware updates. Granted, it doesn't solve the issue and people will hack away at anything that claims to be secure, but at least alternatives are being looked at.

*I'm being a little bit misleading with the term malicious, but I'm gonna get kinda annoying if I keep typing "arbitrary code execution" over and over again and kinda see it as an expedient word that gets the gist of the concept through. The idea behind licensed video games is that the licensor can guarantee the video game will be able to run without harming your device or itself to a certain extent, and from a PR standpoint that is the forefront reason for preventing this sort of stuff- even if we all know the fact that it stops piracy is a huge bonus for the licensor. Granted, there exist a handful of licensed games that can harm themselves or the system on which they are played, and several of those games were not handled well by the licensor, but we'll have digressions until the cows come home if we go down that route.

[Rynjin]

the fact that it stops piracy is a huge bonus for the licensor.

This stops piracy about the same way as eating a plate full of vegetables stops you from having diabetes. It's just Nintendo being Nintendo again and having about as much grasp on how anything involving the internet works as the average 96 year old.

It bricks refurbished consoles (which is likely intentional, game devs and publishers hate used games and consoles because they see no profit from them) and sets modders back about a week or two, punishing only "clean" users (and pushing them to use 3rd party software to fix the mess, as has been noted), with no discernible upside for anybody involved.

Same as their lawsuit against Emulator/ROM sites this week. It's at best laughably naive to think they'll gain anything substantial form this and at worst just Nintendo being their worst, most corporate money grubbing side because they're pissy people would rather play 30 year old games for free instead of repurchasing them at ridiculous markups, if they even exist at all on a Virtual Console that repeatedly gets reset to zero games every time they release a new console.

[Olinser]

This stops piracy about the same way as eating a plate full of vegetables stops you from having diabetes. It's just Nintendo being Nintendo again and having about as much grasp on how anything involving the internet works as the average 96 year old.

It bricks refurbished consoles (which is likely intentional, game devs and publishers hate used games and consoles because they see no profit from them) and sets modders back about a week or two, punishing only "clean" users (and pushing them to use 3rd party software to fix the mess, as has been noted), with no discernible upside for anybody involved.

Same as their lawsuit against Emulator/ROM sites this week. It's at best laughably naive to think they'll gain anything substantial form this and at worst just Nintendo being their worst, most corporate money grubbing side because they're pissy people would rather play 30 year old games for free instead of repurchasing them at ridiculous markups, if they even exist at all on a Virtual Console that repeatedly gets reset to zero games every time they release a new console.

Yep. A quick google shows that there are literally dozens of threads about how to fix the brick, literally less than a week after it went into effect.

People that understand a console enough to mod it are not going to be deterred by something as laughable as a manufacturer auto-bricking it. So yes, the ONLY people actually affected by this for any length of time are people that either didn't intentionally mod the console (there are plenty of stories about people that did something to fix a game/console crash that caused it to flag as 'modded') or bought it secondhand.

Same story, different year. DRM of any kind ONLY affects actual normal users - people actually knowledgeable enough to mod in the first place aren't more than slightly inconvenienced.

[OracleofWuffing]

This stops piracy about the same way as eating a plate full of vegetables stops you from having diabetes. It's just Nintendo being Nintendo again and having about as much grasp on how anything involving the internet works as the average 96 year old.
Yes, it is largely ineffective at stopping piracy- and I would even say a week or two is massively underestimating the homebrew community at this point- but I'll reiterate that the primary reason, from a PR standpoint, is that they don't want you to run unlicensed code to protect you and your hardware. Nintendo isn't responsible if somebody voids their own warranty and chucks the system to someone else. They don't know if, worst case scenario, there's a keylogger attached to your eShop now that sends your Credit Card information to twenty-seven botnets. And even if they did service the unit, the easiest fix would be to chuck an entirely new motherboard into the unit or just replace it with a refurbished unit- neither of which would make good business sense to do for free when other businesses can sell used 3DSes for any amount of money.


Same as their lawsuit against Emulator/ROM sites this week. It's at best laughably naive to think they'll gain anything substantial form this and at worst just Nintendo being their worst, most corporate money grubbing side because they're pissy people would rather play 30 year old games for free instead of repurchasing them at ridiculous markups, if they even exist at all on a Virtual Console that repeatedly gets reset to zero games every time they release a new console.
Perhaps that is why the Switch does not have a Virtual Console store front and is also why Nintendo is chucking their old titles with added online capabilities to anyone opting in to Nintendo Switch Online. Just a hunch.

[Knaight]

Besides that's what you get for buying 2nd(3rd? Xth?) hand stuff. You wanted to save money for the risk of lower quality and well, the risk came out to bite you. You could've bought a brand new console to be sure there would be no such problem, but choose to be cheap and it backfired. Nintendo is not responsible for you trying to skip the price of an actual console out of the factory.

This whole argument about how it's so tragic that people buy secondhand because it denies the manufacturer their rightful profit is both nonsense and notably basically never applied to other industries. On the nonsense side - the existence of that secondary market absolutely affects the purchasing habits of people who buy new. That money they're making selling back to the secondary market is largely going right into new games. It's much the same way that people buying used cars affects people buying new cars, or any other consumer good.

The corporate responsibilities involved also transfer from those other industries. If Honda makes a car with a feature deliberately put there to cause it to fail (say not starting or something) when mechanics do routine tweaks, that's on Honda. Similarly if you buy a used Honda from some dealership that should know about that issue and somehow still caused it the dealership has errored and has some of the responsibility there.

[deuterio12]

The corporate responsibilities involved also transfer from those other industries. If Honda makes a car with a feature deliberately put there to cause it to fail (say not starting or something) when mechanics do routine tweaks, that's on Honda. Similarly if you buy a used Honda from some dealership that should know about that issue and somehow still caused it the dealership has errored and has some of the responsibility there.

Modding a console is not a routine tweak no matter how much you look at it.

And if you mod a car to the point it's no longer following the law about what cars are allowed to drive in the street, the cops are in their full right to stop you and probably take your car and/or driver's license.

If you try to excuse yourself that you bought the car second-hand and the original owner made the mods and the 2nd-hand seller was either a liar or incompetent, it's still completely absurd to blame it on Honda for the law-breaking mods somebody else did.

Either way you should know better than buying 2nd cars without properly checking them first to make sure they're actually inside the law.

[Knaight]

If you try to excuse yourself that you bought the car second-hand and the original owner made the mods and the 2nd-hand seller was either a liar or incompetent, it's still completely absurd to blame it on Honda for the law-breaking mods somebody else did.

When the mods only cause issues because they've specifically engineered the car to fail if modded, yeah, that's on them. Particularly given that "law-breaking" is entirely your addition here. Warranties are, at best, contracts (and some of them aren't particularly enforceable even in that context).

[Olinser]

Modding a console is not a routine tweak no matter how much you look at it.

And if you mod a car to the point it's no longer following the law about what cars are allowed to drive in the street, the cops are in their full right to stop you and probably take your car and/or driver's license.

If you try to excuse yourself that you bought the car second-hand and the original owner made the mods and the 2nd-hand seller was either a liar or incompetent, it's still completely absurd to blame it on Honda for the law-breaking mods somebody else did.

Either way you should know better than buying 2nd cars without properly checking them first to make sure they're actually inside the law.

Nobody anywhere has even attempted to claim that modding a console breaks the law, so that falls flat. Nintendo is perfectly within their rights to void the warranty - actually bricking the console is a WHOLE different issue.

If you want to persist with the car analogy then this is the equivalent of somebody installing a bigger, non-Honda gas tank in the car and Honda disabling the ignition so you can never turn it on again.

[deuterio12]

When the mods only cause issues because they've specifically engineered the car to fail if modded, yeah, that's on them. Particularly given that "law-breaking" is entirely your addition here. Warranties are, at best, contracts (and some of them aren't particularly enforceable even in that context).

Law is a contract by any other name. Follow the rules or get a punishment.

But if you want a smaller scale examples, sure.

If you're playing a soccer match and you grab the ball with the hands while on the middle of the field, you get a penalty too no matter how convenient and fun you think it's carrying the ball in your hands instead of kicking it.

Similarly in a basket match you get penalyzed if you touch the ball with anything but your hands no matter how convenient and fun you think it would be to kick the ball.

And when you go to a non-smokers restaurant, you'll get dragged out if you insist to smoke inside even if you consider that smoking is super-healthy and fun.

[Knaight]

Law is a contract by any other name. Follow the rules or get a punishment.
This doesn't make describing voiding a warranty as "illegal" any less absurd.


But if you want a smaller scale examples, sure.

If you're playing a soccer match and you grab the ball with the hands while on the middle of the field, you get a penalty too no matter how convenient and fun you think it's carrying the ball in your hands instead of kicking it.

Similarly in a basket match you get penalyzed if you touch the ball with anything but your hands no matter how convenient and fun you think it would be to kick the ball.

And when you go to a non-smokers restaurant, you'll get dragged out if you insist to smoke inside even if you consider that smoking is super-healthy and fun.
The car may have been an imperfect analogy, but at least it was a purchased object with an established secondhard market, to compare to a purchased object with an established secondhard market. These examples are all activities, only one of which is even commercial - and even then the only thing being bought is the food.

[deuterio12]

This doesn't make describing voiding a warranty as "illegal" any less absurd.

It's perfectly logical compared to describing custom warrantry-voiding modding to "routine tweaks".



The car may have been an imperfect analogy

Great, then how about address my original point instead of insisting to use analogies even if you admit are wrong in the first place?

And my original point that you quoted was that if you're not paying full price of a product, then you can't expect full quality, simple as that. There's no secret agenda to fill Nintendo's coffers, just admit that the 2nd hand market sells things cheaper for a reason, and that reason is (risk of) lower quality than a product fresh out of the factory. If you go to the 2nd hand market, you're basically gambling and can't complain too much when you lose besides complaining that the dude you were gambling with cheated you.

[Rynjin]

...Do you live in an alternate reality where consumer protection laws don't exist? Buying secondhand isn't as much of a "gamble" as you're imagining. Any reputable place has ways for you to get your money back if a product is defective.

The only reason OP couldn't get his money back is because Gamestop isn't a reputable dealer the product isn't actually defective (so Nintendo won't replace it) and it was past Gamestop's return policy date. Nintendo forced an update that destroyed the product. The product worked perfectly fine (potentially, were it overtly modified, better than fine, since modded units often have quality of life improvements over the base console aside their usual benefits), but the company that initially manufactured it broke it after the fact.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the product being defective, or the secondhand market being the video game equivalent of some disreputable back alley crack deal, this is a matter of a company making a boneheaded move that benefits no one.

[veti]

I'd like to point out that we don't, in fact, know that bricking the console was intentional on Nintendo's part. More likely the mod was simply incompatible with the patch. And since Nintendo didn't produce or approve the mod, it's not reasonable to blame them for not testing their patch against it.

Honestly, as one who's worked in software testing, I sympathise strongly with them on this. Software is complicated. If you update one component, it's a whole lot of trouble to make sure it will work correctly with all the others that it has to. If on top of that you also tried to support everyone who's taken out some of your components and put their own stuff in instead, you'd never get anydamnthing done.

[Rockphed]

I'd like to point out that we don't, in fact, know that bricking the console was intentional on Nintendo's part. More likely the mod was simply incompatible with the patch. And since Nintendo didn't produce or approve the mod, it's not reasonable to blame them for not testing their patch against it.

Honestly, as one who's worked in software testing, I sympathise strongly with them on this. Software is complicated. If you update one component, it's a whole lot of trouble to make sure it will work correctly with all the others that it has to. If on top of that you also tried to support everyone who's taken out some of your components and put their own stuff in instead, you'd never get anydamnthing done.

See, if I were Nintendo, my response to somebody calling in saying that my latest update had bricked their system would probably be to direct them to somewhere where they could re-install the full set of firmware their device requires. If I wanted to make it as hard as possible for people to edit the firmware, I would have firmware be binary that we compile rather than any sort of human readable format. Then I could be as much of a jerk about doing things my way as I want while simultaneously generating good feelings.

Of course, the "how easy is it to get firmware" question is hotly debated among all sorts of device manufacturers. The companies I have worked with required you to create an account with them to download the stuff, but it was generally pretty accessible. I think I used my work email, but it wasn't required. Nintendo has an online store, so they could just distribute these sorts of things behind a wall that requires your store login info.

[The_Jackal]

Fundamentally your problem is that you bought a grey-market device and got screwed. Nintendo isn't the offending party, it was Gamestop, for tinkering with, or otherwise modding, the installed image. The information that Gamestop is an unethical bottom feeder who screws both content providers and their own customers is hardly news.


...Do you live in an alternate reality where consumer protection laws don't exist? Buying secondhand isn't as much of a "gamble" as you're imagining. Any reputable place has ways for you to get your money back if a product is defective.

Sadly, you surrender your consumer rights when you agree to the terms of use in modern computer software.


The only reason OP couldn't get his money back is because Gamestop isn't a reputable dealer the product isn't actually defective (so Nintendo won't replace it) and it was past Gamestop's return policy date. Nintendo forced an update that destroyed the product. The product worked perfectly fine (potentially, were it overtly modified, better than fine, since modded units often have quality of life improvements over the base console aside their usual benefits), but the company that initially manufactured it broke it after the fact.

Again, the terms of use pretty much void your warranty if there are end-user modifications, and since it was acquired used, you can't validate that there aren't any.


This has absolutely nothing to do with the product being defective, or the secondhand market being the video game equivalent of some disreputable back alley crack deal, this is a matter of a company making a boneheaded move that benefits no one.

Gotta disagree here. The whole business model of the console makers is maintaining the exclusivity of their licensed content. Nintendo makes money selling titles, and letting those titles get stolen undercuts the value of their business. In fact, Nintendo is financially responsible for protecting the games they sell against piracy, because otherwise they're in a position where their console sales are bolstered by their own lax security. If I'm a developer letting Nintendo make 30% of retail on the game I wrote for their platform, I am *not* going to be happy that hundreds of thousands of users are playing my game for free because Nintendo can't do their jobs and prevent piracy.

[Rynjin]

Sadly, you surrender your consumer rights when you agree to the terms of use in modern computer software.

If we were talking about downloading a game, sure. This is hardware.




Again, the terms of use pretty much void your warranty if there are end-user modifications, and since it was acquired used, you can't validate that there aren't any.

The warranty is a different matter. Used products generally don't have the warranty anyway. I'm talking return policy.




Gotta disagree here. The whole business model of the console makers is maintaining the exclusivity of their licensed content. Nintendo makes money selling titles, and letting those titles get stolen undercuts the value of their business. In fact, Nintendo is financially responsible for protecting the games they sell against piracy, because otherwise they're in a position where their console sales are bolstered by their own lax security. If I'm a developer letting Nintendo make 30% of retail on the game I wrote for their platform, I am *not* going to be happy that hundreds of thousands of users are playing my game for free because Nintendo can't do their jobs and prevent piracy.

Except none of these updates ever stop piracy. DRM does not stop piracy. Anti-mod updates do not stop piracy. Going by the data you know what the most effective anti-piracy measure is?

Making a good game, and making it easily available.

The most commonly pirated games are usually the ones with DRM, mostly pirated either out of sheer spite, or so people that already bought the game can play it without the performance issues DRM like Denuvo causes (see: Sonic Mania). There's another big subset with region locked games, which then still proceed to sell well if/when publishers deign to release them in a legal to buy format.

It's the same as Nintendo's crusade against emulators recently. Most emulators are used for three reasons: to play games that are hard to find (some games are rare and cost hundreds or thousands to purchase secondhand), to play games that are hard to PLAY (most old consoles run poorly on HDTVs; I own an N64 and Majora's Mask, but emulate it because it's easier to run the game), or to run modded games.

The first two dwindle in popularity when re-releases are common, while the third doesn't affect Nintendo or anyone else' bottom line at all.

[The_Jackal]

If we were talking about downloading a game, sure. This is hardware.

And if you were talking about a hammer, that distinction might mean anything. The 3ds is a modified handheld computer, likely running a fork of Angstrom Linux, if not some custom firmware entirely developed internally by Nintendo. You agree to the EULA when you set up the device, or, likely in this case, the original owner agreed to the EULA when they bought the device, and you have no commercial relationship between yourself and Nintendo.


The warranty is a different matter. Used products generally don't have the warranty anyway. I'm talking return policy.

As you pointed out, you've exceeded Gamestop's return window, so the return policy is irrelevant. Bottom line, you didn't buy the thing from Nintendo, you bought it from Gamestop, and Gamestop didn't buy it from Nintendo either (well, not immediately before they sold it to you. They probably did order it from Nintendo at some point).


Except none of these updates ever stop piracy. DRM does not stop piracy. Anti-mod updates do not stop piracy.

That's like saying, "car thieves can jimmy your car door, so leave the door unlocked when you park".


Going by the data you know what the most effective anti-piracy measure is?
Making a good game, and making it easily available.

Nintendo games are easily available, you just have to pay for them. Oh, what you actually mean is 'Make them cheaper'. Well, businesses go into business to make money, and the investors behind Nintendo expect return on their investment. Games and toys are a very volatile, fad-driven business, and the people investing in them aren't going to simply watch their money drain away just for the mere love of making broke gamers happy.


The most commonly pirated games are usually the ones with DRM, mostly pirated either out of sheer spite, or so people that already bought the game can play it without the performance issues DRM like Denuvo causes (see: Sonic Mania). There's another big subset with region locked games, which then still proceed to sell well if/when publishers deign to release them in a legal to buy format.

I don't know if it's possible to produce accurate statistics on a crime that goes mostly unreported and undetected, so I'm not sure how much weight one can really put on your thesis that somehow locks invite thieves. But it's entirely irrelevant. The people making decisions in these companies are wealthy CEO types. They are not going to come over all kumbaya and start giving their games away.


It's the same as Nintendo's crusade against emulators recently. Most emulators are used for three reasons: to play games that are hard to find (some games are rare and cost hundreds or thousands to purchase secondhand), to play games that are hard to PLAY (most old consoles run poorly on HDTVs; I own an N64 and Majora's Mask, but emulate it because it's easier to run the game), or to run modded games.

Again: Securing their platform is a fundamental duty to Nintendo shareholders and licensors. If they don't do it, they can and will be sued.


The first two dwindle in popularity when re-releases are common, while the third doesn't affect Nintendo or anyone else' bottom line at all.

Somehow, I don't think those niches really trouble Nintendo's bean counters one tiny jot. Given that in the wake of the success of the Switch and Breath of the Wild, Nintendo's riding high on 50% profit margins, so I wouldn't expect them to slack off in protecting their platform and revenue stream, no matter how counterproductive you might argue it to be.

Look, I'm not trying to convince you that the status quo is ideal or just, I don't buy consoles for precisely these reasons (I want to be in control of my hardware). I'm just telling you what the status quo is, and why it leaves Calemyr with no recourse.

[Rynjin]

That's like saying, "car thieves can jimmy your car door, so leave the door unlocked when you park".

It's really not. Locking my car is free and costs me nothing, and prevents casual car thieves or rummagers from messing with my car.

This is like buying a $200 lock every week or so to prevent somebody from snapping a picture of my car. The lock does nothing to stop picture takers and any insinuation as to the contrary is just blowing smoke up customers' asses.


Nintendo games are easily available, you just have to pay for them. Oh, what you actually mean is 'Make them cheaper'. Well, businesses go into business to make money, and the investors behind Nintendo expect return on their investment. Games and toys are a very volatile, fad-driven business, and the people investing in them aren't going to simply watch their money drain away just for the mere love of making broke gamers happy.

The vast majority of most games made before 2000 are unavailable for easy sale, if indeed they exist at all outside of private collections. It's not a matter of making them cheaper, it's a matter of making them EXIST IN A PURCHASABLE FORM. Take half a second to check you know what you're talking about before getting up on your high horse.

People were RABID to buy the NES and SNES Classic systems when they were released...until they also proved to be impossible to get their hands on due to Nintendo intentionally under-manufacturing them to artificially inflate demand. And then people went right back to emulating those games, because it still ended up being the only way to play them unless you wanted to pay some scalper, I **** you not, $15, 000 to get one.

You can get them cheaper on Ebay now, but that still puts no money in Nintendo's hands. If they'd manufactured to meet demand instead of raise it, it would have been pure profit.

Again: If you make it available for sale, people will buy it. Shocking.



I don't know if it's possible to produce accurate statistics on a crime that goes mostly unreported and undetected, so I'm not sure how much weight one can really put on your thesis that somehow locks invite thieves. But it's entirely irrelevant. The people making decisions in these companies are wealthy CEO types. They are not going to come over all kumbaya and start giving their games away.

There have been multiple studies done on this. They are easily searchable on Google. Game piracy does not affect the final sales total of a game, and often boosts it.

That speaks that the majority of cases of piracy (attributed to being something like 50% of all the traffic of the internet worldwide) are not driven by a simple desire to get something for free.

We also have publishers outright admitting that DRM doesn't work, yet they still continue to use it. Again, easily searchable facts.




Again: Securing their platform is a fundamental duty to Nintendo shareholders and licensors. If they don't do it, they can and will be sued.

I'd be interested to see the case files for all those times Nintendo was sued by shareholders for not cracking down on Emulator sites from the year 2000 to today. That's how long Emu Paradise had been running unmolested before now.

Hell, they still haven't been. It was two different sites Nintendo was targeting.




Look, I'm not trying to convince you that the status quo is ideal or just, I don't buy consoles for precisely these reasons (I want to be in control of my hardware). I'm just telling you what the status quo is, and why it leaves Calemyr with no recourse.

Except you're wrong, as earlier in the thread proved. Calemyr had a very simple recourse: he downloaded third party software he otherwise would not have in order to fix the thing Nintendo broke.

The patch had literally the opposite of the intended effect.

[The_Jackal]

It's really not. Locking my car is free and costs me nothing, and prevents casual car thieves or rummagers from messing with my car.

This is like buying a $200 lock every week or so to prevent somebody from snapping a picture of my car. The lock does nothing to stop picture takers and any insinuation as to the contrary is just blowing smoke up customers' asses.

I think you're wildly underestimating the value of the resource that Nintendo is trying to protect. There's billions of dollars of revenue at stake, every year.


The vast majority of most games made before 2000 are unavailable for easy sale, if indeed they exist at all outside of private collections. It's not a matter of making them cheaper, it's a matter of making them EXIST IN A PURCHASABLE FORM. Take half a second to check you know what you're talking about before getting up on your high horse.

It's not my horse. It's Nintendo's.


People were RABID to buy the NES and SNES Classic systems when they were released...until they also proved to be impossible to get their hands on due to Nintendo intentionally under-manufacturing them to artificially inflate demand. And then people went right back to emulating those games, because it still ended up being the only way to play them unless you wanted to pay some scalper, I **** you not, $15, 000 to get one.

Yes, it's almost as if they'd learned from another consumer electronics manufacturer (https://www.apple.com/) how to manufacture artificial scarcity to ensure healthy demand for their product.


You can get them cheaper on Ebay now, but that still puts no money in Nintendo's hands. If they'd manufactured to meet demand instead of raise it, it would have been pure profit.

I'm sure they will, but the thing about demand is that it's actually wildly difficult to predict. That's why the toy business is so volatile. Market trends and fads are, in fact, very difficult to foresee, and the people who can (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs) can become very, very rich (and, for that matter, so can people who can't (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Kotick)).


Again: If you make it available for sale, people will buy it. Shocking.

Yeah, that's an assertion that's contingent on 20/20 hindsight, and it fundamentally misunderstands how modern capitalism works, in any case. You think Nintendo's job is to sell things that people want to buy? Wrong. Nintendo's job is to pump up Nintendo's stock price, by posting solid numbers of sales and profit margins. What all the things you are complaining about are aimed at is the latter goal: Protecting Nintendo's profit margins. One thing I can promise you, above all others, is that suddenly chopping the price of their product and dropping DRM from it is that it will not improve Nintendo's profit margins.


There have been multiple studies done on this. They are easily searchable on Google. Game piracy does not affect the final sales total of a game, and often boosts it.

Cite one. And realize that we have an epidemic of bad statistics and science that pollutes the internet with falsehoods. But even if they are true, they aren't going to convince Nintendo's leadership or shareholders. Nobody gets that rich without being greedy; it's too much work.


That speaks that the majority of cases of piracy (attributed to being something like 50% of all the traffic of the internet worldwide) are not driven by a simple desire to get something for free.

I wasn't aware that you could interrogate a web-server to quantify motivation and desire. It's not remotely possible that people answered a survey in a manner which permitted them to rationalize their actions. In fact, it's completely without precedent that the way people answer polls and the way they really act doesn't quite line up (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/).


We also have publishers outright admitting that DRM doesn't work, yet they still continue to use it. Again, easily searchable facts.

Yeah, and I can show you a video showing a locksmith opening a $150.00 safe in 5 seconds with a big magnet:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApJQ2wcYjBo

You can sell people something that doesn't work if they want what it purports to do bad enough. Why do you think Churches, Economists, and fortune-tellers are able to keep drawing paychecks?

[QUOTE]I'd be interested to see the case files for all those times Nintendo was sued by shareholders for not cracking down on Emulator sites from the year 2000 to today. That's how long Emu Paradise had been running unmolested before now.

Hell, they still haven't been. It was two different sites Nintendo was targeting.

Except you're wrong, as earlier in the thread proved. Calemyr had a very simple recourse: he downloaded third party software he otherwise would not have in order to fix the thing Nintendo broke.

The patch had literally the opposite of the intended effect.

Sure, I'm not arguing that. As I said, I'm not advocating for DRM. I'm not advocating against DRM. I'm explaining why, in the context of Nintendo's business, they do things which seem to be hostile to their customers, and why they will continue to do so, in spite of any reasoned argument why they're wasting their time. It's the same reason the recording industry continues to advocate to sue people who pirate music, all the while fostering a scalper ecosystem that bleeds away the lion's share of the money the artists they purport to represent should be earning. Stupid things happen all the time in business, and as long as the business' core financials appear to be healthy, they won't change. That's how private equity capital works: They buy businesses, restructure them with a bunch of debt, flog them back on the market with cashflow that appears better, which then sells for a higher price, to a market which is full of participants who don't understand the long-term prognosis for the business is bad.

[OracleofWuffing]

Yes, it's almost as if they'd learned from another consumer electronics manufacturer (https://www.apple.com/) how to manufacture artificial scarcity to ensure healthy demand for their product.
Well, spinning off that point, I'd like to return to the nature of how Nintendo's competitors would act in this situation. At one point, Microsoft advised their consumers not to buy used consoles (http://www.ign.com/articles/2009/11/16/microsoft-dont-buy-modded-xbox-360-consoles) for reasons very similar to the initial topic- that's a relatively old article, but I'm not seeing much to give me reason they don't follow similar policy today. Come to think of it, I believe Windows Genuine Activation is still a thing, and illegitimate Windows copies are probably the closest analog the PC Video Game audience has to the situation at hand. Sony's policy (https://www.playstation.com/en-ie/get-help/help-library/my-account/grief-reporting/banned-and-suspended-consoles-and-accounts/) states "Once a PlayStation system has been banned the decision is final and cannot be reversed. This is because bans on PlayStation systems and accounts are responses to the most severe behaviours," though my singular dig through Google doesn't necessarily connect that to mods because it keeps getting connected with some issues with Skyrim and Fallout mods instead of hard/soft mods themselves. Apple is so notorious about not giving jailbreakers the time of day that I'm barely even gonna check their current policy, and Android... Well, that's a lot of retailers to go through and check, but I'm fairly confident most will refuse to repair a device if it is deemed rooted. Those that want a further exercise can also compare and contrast how well those parties make their previous titles playable without third party support.

All that points to Nintendo simply following industry standard. That doesn't mean that the standard is good, and it certainly doesn't mean the standard should remain as-is unchallenged. But it also means that, for the time being, if you play any video games legitimately, you are indirectly supporting this standard- whether it be on a Nintendo platform or most other.

[Rodin]

You can get them cheaper on Ebay now, but that still puts no money in Nintendo's hands. If they'd manufactured to meet demand instead of raise it, it would have been pure profit.

Again: If you make it available for sale, people will buy it. Shocking.


Point of order - they did realize that (even accounting for deliberately under-manufacturing to raise demand) they had massively underestimated the demand for the console and manufactured more of them. I bought mine just a couple months ago, and a quick search on Amazon shows them still in stock.

They made it available, and I bought it.

[Bohandas]

But it also means that, for the time being, if you play any video games legitimately, you are indirectly supporting this standard- whether it be on a Nintendo platform or most other.

And that's definitely not the sort of thing you should be supporting

[Gnoman]

Well, spinning off that point, I'd like to return to the nature of how Nintendo's competitors would act in this situation. At one point, Microsoft advised their consumers not to buy used consoles (http://www.ign.com/articles/2009/11/16/microsoft-dont-buy-modded-xbox-360-consoles) for reasons very similar to the initial topic- that's a relatively old article, but I'm not seeing much to give me reason they don't follow similar policy today. Come to think of it, I believe Windows Genuine Activation is still a thing, and illegitimate Windows copies are probably the closest analog the PC Video Game audience has to the situation at hand. Sony's policy (https://www.playstation.com/en-ie/get-help/help-library/my-account/grief-reporting/banned-and-suspended-consoles-and-accounts/) states "Once a PlayStation system has been banned the decision is final and cannot be reversed. This is because bans on PlayStation systems and accounts are responses to the most severe behaviours," though my singular dig through Google doesn't necessarily connect that to mods because it keeps getting connected with some issues with Skyrim and Fallout mods instead of hard/soft mods themselves. Apple is so notorious about not giving jailbreakers the time of day that I'm barely even gonna check their current policy, and Android... Well, that's a lot of retailers to go through and check, but I'm fairly confident most will refuse to repair a device if it is deemed rooted. Those that want a further exercise can also compare and contrast how well those parties make their previous titles playable without third party support.

All that points to Nintendo simply following industry standard. That doesn't mean that the standard is good, and it certainly doesn't mean the standard should remain as-is unchallenged. But it also means that, for the time being, if you play any video games legitimately, you are indirectly supporting this standard- whether it be on a Nintendo platform or most other.

The difference there is that Microsoft and Sony only ban the console from being used on XboX Live/PSN. They don't brick it remotely.

[Bohandas]

And that's definitely not the sort of thing you should be supporting

I mean this seriously. A lot of people have claimed that this issue illustrates why you shouldn't buy secondhand, but I think it illustrates why you should only buy secondhand. You shouldn't give Nintendo another cent of your money if they treat people like that.

[Keltest]

I mean this seriously. A lot of people have claimed that this issue illustrates why you shouldn't buy secondhand, but I think it illustrates why you should only buy secondhand. You shouldn't give Nintendo another cent of your money if they treat people like that.

You realize, of course, that a completely second hand economy is completely unsustainable?

[The_Jackal]

I mean this seriously. A lot of people have claimed that this issue illustrates why you shouldn't buy secondhand, but I think it illustrates why you should only buy secondhand. You shouldn't give Nintendo another cent of your money if they treat people like that.

They treat hackers like that. Don't mod your system, and you'll be just fine. Look, I sympathize with Calemyr, but he bought a used system which turns out to have been modded. He got screwed. But he didn't get screwed by Nintendo, he got screwed by the people who sold him damaged goods. But expecting Nintendo to just let people hack their platform without repercussions fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the console gaming market. If you can't abide the concept of the platform enforcing its license terms in this manner, then yes, I'd agree with your statement: You shouldn't give Nintendo another cent of your money. Stop buying consoles, buy a PC, and expect to encounter some other form of DRM enforcement.

[veti]

It bears saying again, because clearly it didn't register first time:

There is no reason to believe that Calemyr's story had anything to do with DRM. All we know is that Nintendo's patch was incompatible with firmware that someone else had applied to his system. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who knows anything about software.

The fact that the unauthorised patch's authors had fixed the issue within a few days - suggests that Nintendo wasn't purposely trying to brick anything, because if they were they could have done a much more thorough job.

[deuterio12]

It bears saying again, because clearly it didn't register first time:

There is no reason to believe that Calemyr's story had anything to do with DRM. All we know is that Nintendo's patch was incompatible with firmware that someone else had applied to his system. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who knows anything about software.

The fact that the unauthorised patch's authors had fixed the issue within a few days - suggests that Nintendo wasn't purposely trying to brick anything, because if they were they could have done a much more thorough job.

Indeed, it's not Nintendo's job to make sure their new patches are compatible with whatever hacker mod one machine has.

It's actually impossible. Nintendo can't predict every piece of custom crap a system of dubious origin has, and chances are higher something will go wrong than everything running smoothly.

[Psyren]

*sidesteps argument*

Going after Gamestop is your best bet here. Raise enough of a stink on their customer service line and they will send you a new 3DS, if only to shut you up. It's a trivial expense for them and a win for you.

I wouldn't act any form of tech-savvy at all; play dumb about firmware and warranties and modding and all that jazz. Just pretend you're an angry boomer and your nephew's toy that you CLEARLY bought at the store and CLEARLY have the receipt for that said store REFUSES to honor just stopped working one day on its own. Don't stop until you reach the regional district manager over in corporate.

[deuterio12]

OP's already got the 3DS working again in case you missed it.

[Bohandas]

They treat hackers like that. Don't mod your system, and you'll be just fine. Look, I sympathize with Calemyr, but he bought a used system which turns out to have been modded. He got screwed. But he didn't get screwed by Nintendo, he got screwed by the people who sold him damaged goods. But expecting Nintendo to just let people hack their platform without repercussions fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the console gaming market. If you can't abide the concept of the platform enforcing its license terms in this manner, then yes, I'd agree with your statement: You shouldn't give Nintendo another cent of your money.

So we agree then.

Though it's not just consoles, honestly you shouldn't buy from anyone who enforces their license terms, because it's just going to perpetuate license terms being enforced.

[Psyren]

OP's already got the 3DS working again in case you missed it.

I did miss that, though in my defense, half the thread seems to be arguing about the difference between hardware and software licensing or something.

[Anarion]

So we agree then.

Though it's not just consoles, honestly you shouldn't buy from anyone who enforces their license terms, because it's just going to perpetuate license terms being enforced.

And that's bad? The entire gaming business is built on a shell that, technologically, is close to zero cost to copy things infinitely once somebody has finished making something. You could upend the entire concept of sales entirely, which I guess is possible if 100% of projects are done via kickstarter or similar pre-project financing. But otherwise, people are going to spend a lot of their time, money, and tech effort making it possible to actually sell individual units of the product and prevent people from openly and freely modding their systems because it's the only way to make selling games at all a thing people can do to make a living.

[Bohandas]

And that's bad? The entire gaming business is built on a shell that, technologically, is close to zero cost to copy things infinitely once somebody has finished making something.

Precisely. The only reason this stuff costs anythig is because the price has been artificially inflated to increase revenue. The entire industry is built around price fixing and artificial scarcity.

[Knaight]

Precisely. The only reason this stuff costs anythig is because the price has been artificially inflated to increase revenue. The entire industry is built around price fixing.

Production costs still exist - they're just extremely front loaded, though the current industry patterns of running servers and doing constant patches is adding a lot more maintenance price. It's just the per-unit costs which are near zero.

[Kato]

Precisely. The only reason this stuff costs anythig is because the price has been artificially inflated to increase revenue. The entire industry is built around price fixing and artificial scarcity.

Yes, because people should work for free, right? :smallconfused: don't get me wrong, I'm not a saint in some regards, but claiming video games should basically be free or close to it because their digitally distributed or the discs are cheap is an insult to anyone who earns their money making them.
(that is not to say some prices aren't inflated or some games not worth their price, or an unfair share is directed to the wrong channels)

[BeerMug Paladin]

Precisely. The only reason this stuff costs anythig is because the price has been artificially inflated to increase revenue. The entire industry is built around price fixing and artificial scarcity.
Have you ever heard of music?

I go through so few games, that I don't worry about these topics. No matter my decision, what I do will end up not mattering just because I am a marginal consumer.

[Bohandas]

Have you ever heard of music?

Oh yeah, the music industry's even worse. I just didn't want to get into it because it was political and only tangentially related to the topic at hand.

[Kato]

Oh yeah, the music industry's even worse. I just didn't want to get into it because it was political and only tangentially related to the topic at hand.

I'm pretty sure economics are not politics (or religion, unless we go really off script) so please make your case on how to make video games and music for free.

[halfeye]

I'm pretty sure economics are not politics (or religion, unless we go really off script) so please make your case on how to make video games and music for free.

I'm pretty sure all theories of economics are political.

[Bohandas]

I'm pretty sure economics are not politics (or religion, unless we go really off script) so please make your case on how to make video games and music for free.

Hobbyists producing stuff and then putting it online. There were lots of sites like this back when I was in college.

[Knaight]

Hobbyists producing stuff and then putting it online. There were lots of sites like this back when I was in college.

Which isn't prevented by commercial industries, but does prevent full time creative work for all but the already wealthy. Somehow I suspect you'd dislike what that would do to artistic output.

[Kato]

Hobbyists producing stuff and then putting it online. There were lots of sites like this back when I was in college.

Uhm... And you don't think people who have to work next to making games will cause a decrease in if not quality, at least quantity of games? (but really, also quality because it's not like the hundreds of people working on a AAA title would work the same way if they don't get paid)

[Bohandas]

The amount of games would be reduced, but hardly by an unnaceptably large degree. Plus, the losses would be disproportionately among the graphics-driven games, which are universally terrible anyway (if you don't believe me, try playing one that's more than four years old)

[Knaight]

The amount of games would be reduced, but hardly by an unnaceptably large degree. Plus, the losses would be disproportionately among the graphics-driven games, which are universally terrible anyway (if you don't believe me, try playing one that's more than four years old)

I'm not just talking about reduction - I'm talking about how the people who's creative project is the only reason they aren't a member of the idle rich are going to produce fundamentally different art, and how art collapsing to only that viewpoint would diminish it (as would losing that viewpoint entirely).

Videogames weather this comparatively well, though I can think of a few this would lose that absolutely aren't graphics driven (including one graphically clunky gem made by actual Ph.D. professors and research scholars of mythology, which manages to have one of the most fascinating fantasy settings I've seen despite being a video game).

Music though? This would all but kill several genres.

[Forum Explorer]

The amount of games would be reduced, but hardly by an unnaceptably large degree. Plus, the losses would be disproportionately among the graphics-driven games, which are universally terrible anyway (if you don't believe me, try playing one that's more than four years old)

What counts as a graphically driven game? Is that any game that uses state of the art graphics for it's time? Because then I can think of lots of examples that have stood the test of time.

But really, limiting it to just games that are made for free would effectively wipe out video games. Any high quality ones anyways. And no, not just AAA games. Because all the great indie games, your FTLs, Cupheads, Undertales, ect, all cost money and would not have been made if it weren't for money.

Because video games aren't like music or books. They almost always take a team of people to make, and the more complex the game, the more people needed. And hey, speaking of books, it's a good example of how money drives quality. Look at fanfiction. It's typically lower quality, much lower quality, then a fully published book. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

For games, the only free stuff I know of is crappy unfinished games, and flash player games that are pretty low quality, if occasionally fun to play.

[CN the Logos]

People replying to Bohandas

Guys, his avatar is literally a set of Discordian symbols. You're being trolled. Like, super hard. It's actually a little impressive; pool players call shots all the game, but trolls successfully doing it is pretty rare.

[Rockphed]

Because video games aren't like music or books. They almost always take a team of people to make, and the more complex the game, the more people needed. And hey, speaking of books, it's a good example of how money drives quality. Look at fanfiction. It's typically lower quality, much lower quality, then a fully published book. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

For games, the only free stuff I know of is crappy unfinished games, and flash player games that are pretty low quality, if occasionally fun to play.

Dwarf Fortress would like to have a word with you. The word is decorated with bands of microcline and meanaces with spikes of rose gold. On the word is an image of the word in cinnabar.

[Wookieetank]

Dwarf Fortress would like to have a word with you. The word is decorated with bands of microcline and meanaces with spikes of rose gold. On the word is an image of the word in cinnabar.

May I quote this?

[Rockphed]

May I quote this?

Of course.

[deuterio12]

Dwarf Fortress would like to have a word with you. The word is decorated with bands of microcline and meanaces with spikes of rose gold. On the word is an image of the word in cinnabar.

Battle for Wesnoth is free and sports better graphics than a lot of paid 2D games out there, including idle animations and whatnot.

Cave Story was initially released as a completely free game and became popular enough to jump into consoles.

Yume Nikki's a crazy beautiful game that could simply never been made if you were worrying about shareholders and profit.

A lot of nice little gems done in RPGmaker and released completely for free too like Ib.

Yes, there's a lot more crappy free games, but in the other hand there's also a lot more of crappy paid games.

[Knaight]

Because video games aren't like music or books. They almost always take a team of people to make, and the more complex the game, the more people needed. And hey, speaking of books, it's a good example of how money drives quality. Look at fanfiction. It's typically lower quality, much lower quality, then a fully published book. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

So do books - editors, various people helping with research, editors, publishers, editors, cover artists (which isn't as important, but does help these books get found), editors. Books are better because authors have those networks of help, and without a commercial industry that goes away.

[Forum Explorer]

Dwarf Fortress would like to have a word with you. The word is decorated with bands of microcline and meanaces with spikes of rose gold. On the word is an image of the word in cinnabar.

Ha touche! :smallamused: Not that I've ever been able to play the game for any length of time, but it is a pretty (in)famous game.


So do books - editors, various people helping with research, editors, publishers, editors, cover artists (which isn't as important, but does help these books get found), editors. Books are better because authors have those networks of help, and without a commercial industry that goes away.

...I'm sorry, but are you agreeing with me, or the picking a nit? Cause, yeah, a bunch of people can be involved in writing a book, but there is still (typically) one author. Even if you include all of the people who do anything involved with the book, they'd still be way less then the people involved in making a AAA game.

[Erloas]

...I'm sorry, but are you agreeing with me, or the picking a nit? Cause, yeah, a bunch of people can be involved in writing a book, but there is still (typically) one author. Even if you include all of the people who do anything involved with the book, they'd still be way less then the people involved in making a AAA game.

I think it still demonstrates the point. A book usually takes a lot fewer people to make, as does a song, when compared to a game. But that doesn't mean they take no people or that they take an insignificant amount of time and effort. Of course that is also demonstrated by the fact that a single song is now valued at $1 and most books around $10. It is also true of games, and programs in general, the big ones start around $60, the medium size ones are $20-40 and the small ones from free to $10, usually pretty directly correlated to how much effort was put into each. As much derision as some AAA games get, even ones that are similar to previous versions, they all have a *lot* of people working on them, if you believe it was wasted effort or not doesn't change the fact that it was work.

The free games/programs generally come down to one of three things. They really are just that simple and the person probably put it together in their free time for fun, or possibly it is a senior project or simply school/work experience. They are driven by advertising, in which case they aren't free, it is just that you are now the commodity and the program is just a fancy vehicle for the ads. Or they are selling something else, aka it is a demo version of the program or you're buying a fancy sword or armor, the game just makes you want that thing, i.e. microtransactions.

[Rockphed]

The free games/programs generally come down to one of three things. They really are just that simple and the person probably put it together in their free time for fun, or possibly it is a senior project or simply school/work experience. They are driven by advertising, in which case they aren't free, it is just that you are now the commodity and the program is just a fancy vehicle for the ads. Or they are selling something else, aka it is a demo version of the program or you're buying a fancy sword or armor, the game just makes you want that thing, i.e. microtransactions.

4. They are created by True Believers who are trying to usher in the imminent open source future.

[Rodin]

4. They are created by True Believers who are trying to usher in the imminent open source future.

Yeah, good luck with that.

The insurmountable thing for free software of all types is that it takes a lot of effort to make the stuff. If it's relatively small and can be done by one or two people then it's feasible. The larger the team gets, the less likely it becomes. Many of the indie games in my library were made by over a dozen people working full time to do so. A smaller title by an established studio will likely have around 100 people on staff. Big open world games and you're starting to talk about 500 people working full time and beyond.

Try mobilizing all that, and then saying "By the way, none of you are getting paid for spending 2 years of your life working 60 hours a week on this project". The police would never find the body!

People like being paid for their work. Film at eleven.

[Erloas]

4. They are created by True Believers who are trying to usher in the imminent open source future.

I would mostly roll that into one of the others. Many open source projects are done in people's free time. There are a few companies that put part of programs into open source, but that is usually to encourage people to build stuff to work with their products. Or to get individuals to use their products so they can sell support to their companies. There is always money involved, some are just more clever in figuring out how to get it. Even the free ones from individuals are often essentially a resume to make themselves more money.

Not that I don't appreciate all the open source work being done, but I know someone has figured out a way to make money off the effort.

[Kato]

I think nobody is claiming that there is no free, good software (or music, or writing).
But claiming these fields could be sustainable solely by people who do it for free / in their spare time is utopian. Or delusional. People need to eat, and unless you somehow manage to feed your family without working, you won't be able to make as if it's your job.
The most likely approach (in my mind) is a donation / pay what you want approach, but I'm not sure how much you can rely on people's generosity to make a living.

[BeerMug Paladin]

On the topic of book editors, I have read multiple (albeit brief) accounts of writers describing their editors' input as largely transformative of their work. Now I don't know about established writers, but I can't even conscript people I know into providing editing advice. Not that I know any professional editors, granted.


The amount of games would be reduced, but hardly by an unnaceptably large degree. Plus, the losses would be disproportionately among the graphics-driven games, which are universally terrible anyway (if you don't believe me, try playing one that's more than four years old)
This doesn't strike me as a serious or particularly informed statement.

Audiences are fickle, and graphics/music- no matter what people say- matter quite a bit.

Generally with art, the pop culture stuff is largely garbage. Now and then forces align to produce something with artistic merit, tapping into the same pool of resources as what the festering garbage heaps utilize. It's just how things work in our wacky world.

[Anarion]

The most likely approach (in my mind) is a donation / pay what you want approach, but I'm not sure how much you can rely on people's generosity to make a living.

I think if you took away the ability to protect and sell individual game units, the most likely outcome would be everything being pre-funded in the style of either kickstarter or by wealthy investors (who might themselves raise money from other groups). Lots of people just wouldn't make anything unless they got paid up front to do it. That wouldn't be horrible, it's not like kickstarter style fundraising is bad, and I'm sure lots of cool projects would get funded. It would probably increase the value of name recognition a lot though and make it much more challenging for a new developer to break into the industry, since people generally aren't willing to pay to speculate on somebody they've never heard of who might or might not be any good.

[Erloas]

I suppose if Kickstarter/etc. became the only way for new games to come about then more people would be looking there. As it is, even the "viral" successes are relatively small in the grand scheme of things. Even the popular ones generally have had quite a bit of work done before they ever hit Kickstarter, to show what they want to do, and that all comes from the bank accounts and free time of the developers. inXile for instance specially said that what they could do in Torment was increased and expanded because of post Kickstarter sales from Wastelands 2, then both of those went in to increase a Bard's Tale, and all of those together are helping with Wastelands 3. So normal growth of a company just like you would expect. The point being that all of the games would be diminished if funds were only ever coming from crowdsourcing.

I think there would also be a lot more failed projects. I'm just about positive that the vast majority end "in the red" knowing that it will be made up for in post launch sales. If that is gone there is no incentive to keep pushing. Sure you may never be able to try to launch another game, but who's going to work to stay in an industry that doesn't pay?

Or you know, more "mobile games" that are little more than timers linking ads.

[Bohandas]

4. They are created by True Believers who are trying to usher in the imminent open source future.

What hey really need to concentrate on is creatig an open-source AI program capable of generating other open source programs

[Bohandas]

Ha touche! :smallamused: Not that I've ever been able to play the game for any length of time, but it is a pretty (in)famous game.

You need to download the even more indie Dwarf Therapist accessory program. Makes it much more managable.

[Erloas]

The amount of games would be reduced, but hardly by an unnaceptably large degree. Plus, the losses would be disproportionately among the graphics-driven games, which are universally terrible anyway (if you don't believe me, try playing one that's more than four years old)
If you don't understand how graphics can be used to tell a story and set atmosphere then you just aren't paying attention. Granted not all advances are used to equal importance in all games, but pushing the limits forward makes it available for everyone and it will be used in many different ways.

edit: so as not to double post.
I would be interested to hear what a couple "graphics-driven games" from 2008-2013 are basically unplayable at this point. Also to contrast that, a few games from the same time period that are what you would consider being amazing examples of gaming.

end edit.


This doesn't strike me as a serious or particularly informed statement.

Audiences are fickle, and graphics/music- no matter what people say- matter quite a bit.

Generally with art, the pop culture stuff is largely garbage. Now and then forces align to produce something with artistic merit, tapping into the same pool of resources as what the festering garbage heaps utilize. It's just how things work in our wacky world.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/09/telltale-games-begins-wave-of-layoffs-cancels-stranger-things-game/
This is unfortunately all to relivant to the discussion.
Especially since their games were entirely story driven, they weren't focused on pushing graphics, they were well recieved and well reviewed, and that still didn't translate into enough sales. And how about that, not making money means a company can't exist.

[Bohandas]

Ok, I'll admit "four years" was a bit of an exaggeration. But if you go back far enough you'll find that while the puzzle and turn-based strategy games and RPGs generally remain as good as they ever were (or at least the ones from after two button mice were standard do), when you look at more graphics and engine driven genres like first-person shooters and real-time strategy if you go back far enough you'll find yourself saying "what is this ****" to AAA titles. This was my personal reaction to Half-Life 2 as a result of the fact that I first played the game in 2012; by that time the game's revolutionary graphics and engine were standard fare and all the time it spent showing them off just slowed the pace of the game down while contributing nothing.

[Erloas]

Ok, I'll admit "four years" was a bit of an exaggeration. But if you go back far enough you'll find that while the puzzle and turn-based strategy games and RPGs generally remain as good as they ever were (or at least the ones from after two button mice were standard do), when you look at more graphics and engine driven genres like first-person shooters and real-time strategy if you go back far enough you'll find yourself saying "what is this ****" to AAA titles. This was my personal reaction to Half-Life 2 as a result of the fact that I first played the game in 2012; by that time the game's revolutionary graphics and engine were standard fare and all the time it spent showing them off just slowed the pace of the game down while contributing nothing.
What you're really saying is that some gameplay styles don't age as well as others, which doesn't really have much to do with graphics. Half-Life 2 wasn't popular because of graphics, it was popular because of the story and the gameplay, it also happened to have above average graphics for the time too. But the good things about it's gameplay are now so ubiquitous in FPS games now that they are taken for granted and they've been refined and updated for 20 years. When you look at it Fallout 2 is still an amazing game, even if it can be a bit rough with what we're used to, but it also had "very good" graphics for the time.

When we look at a game like Tetris, Pacman, or Asteroid the appeal to those games was entirely gameplay, and they are also styles that haven't really been modernized, but what made them fun at the time is no longer enough and it doesn't really have anything to do with graphics. While someone might still play a Tetris game, they're not even going to be willing to pay a quarter to play it forever, let alone just once.

Even some puzzle and strategy games I don't think I could play any more because my expectations for the genre and what you *should* be able to do have progressed so much since they came out. I loved Sim City when it was new, but now it is too slow, too limited, and too basic to have any real appeal, and that doesn't have anything to do with graphics.


Considering that 20 years ago there really wasn't an "indie" scene and I can't think of any games from that time, that anyone talks about now, which wouldn't have been equivalent to a "AAA" game for the time; that some ages better than others doesn't seem to have much to do with who developed them, how much it cost to develop them, or where they fell on the graphics/hardware requirements.

[Rodin]

RTS games seem like a particularly poor choice, since the old games there DO hold up. Starcraft is considered the best RTS of all time for a reason, and that game is 20 years old. Heck, even Starcraft 2 is 8 years ago now. Both AAA titles that would not exist under a free software paradigm.

Heck, a quick Googling of "Best RTS games" doesn't show one that's less than 5 years old on the first page, and it takes 3 pages to get newer than 4 years old. You can hardly say that the fans of that genre are "graphic-driven". Oh, and all of the games on the list apart from MAYBE Sins of the Solar Empire are from big studios and would be considered AAA titles. The RTS genre simply would not exist without them.

[Bohandas]

RTS games seem like a particularly poor choice, since the old games there DO hold up. Starcraft is considered the best RTS of all time for a reason, and that game is 20 years old. Heck, even Starcraft 2 is 8 years ago now. Both AAA titles that would not exist under a free software paradigm.

Heck, a quick Googling of "Best RTS games" doesn't show one that's less than 5 years old on the first page, and it takes 3 pages to get newer than 4 years old. You can hardly say that the fans of that genre are "graphic-driven". Oh, and all of the games on the list apart from MAYBE Sins of the Solar Empire are from big studios and would be considered AAA titles. The RTS genre simply would not exist without them.

I was falling asleep when I wrote that last post, I may have been thinking of some other genre.

What I said about Half-Life 2 still stands though. The game looks for locks you in rooms with no action for ten or twenty minutes at a time to make you look at the now-obsolete facial animations on the NPCs. And there's also lots of things where the physics engine had a capability that the game didn't have a legitimate use for so they showhorned one in that doesn't fit to show it off. Chech out Yhatzee Crowshaw's video "Half Life 2 Update"

[Kato]

Well, I think it is obvious not all old games can hold up to modern standards but game development is a (mostly) continuous process. You can't jump from Pong to Breath of the Wild, games build onto things previous games did and improve upon them. Whether or not Half-life 2 holds up today, without it and similar games that are more or less dated today we wouldn't be where gaming is today.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Well, I think it is obvious not all old games can hold up to modern standards but game development is a (mostly) continuous process. You can't jump from Pong to Breath of the Wild, games build onto things previous games did and improve upon them. Whether or not Half-life 2 holds up today, without it and similar games that are more or less dated today we wouldn't be where gaming is today.

It seems to me that genres which do not significantly change over time end up having the games that are agreed to hold up over time. Just because there's nothing newer to look at in the older category in retrospect and notice that there's something important missing in the earlier work.

I hypothesize that genres that do develop and change over time by significant margins are generally regarded as ones that don't age well. That's because an experimental new formula found a quality-of-life improvement for the genre in question. It was missing before which all subsequent games include from that point on. And there's likely to be many incremental changes like this over a decade or so.

I also feel the need to point out that the older a game gets, the more likely it is that everyone has at least some knowledge of it. So people rating games which are older more highly than newer games is about as much a mystery as say, Citizen Kane being regarded as the Best Film of All Time. I should really try to watch that some time...

[ANOTHERSTORY]

Nintendo is life man. Bowsette for the win.

[DaedalusMkV]

RTS games seem like a particularly poor choice, since the old games there DO hold up. Starcraft is considered the best RTS of all time for a reason, and that game is 20 years old. Heck, even Starcraft 2 is 8 years ago now. Both AAA titles that would not exist under a free software paradigm.

Oh, if you go back far enough you'll find RTS games that don't hold up any more. Try playing Warcraft 1, with its 4-unit control limit and expectation you'll somehow wrangle 30+ units through a near-nonexistent pathing system, especially if you're used to smooth control schemes like Starcraft 2, and see how long you can tolerate it. The horribly aged graphics won't help. Hell, even the early Command and Conquer games feel pretty off by modern standards, just because of the wonky pathing, lack of hotkeys and engine limitations causing weirdness like moving units only taking splash damage from explosives.

I'd argue the RTS genre post-2000 holds up so well overall because between Blizzard and Westwood's efforts around the time they pretty much perfected the genre. Starcraft's flaws are few and almost purely the result of computational limitations of the time, and I think the fact that there was so little room for improvement over games like SC1 and Red Alert 2 is a big part of the reason the genre basically stagnated since. Why play the new offering when you could be playing Starcraft/RA2/Homeworld instead?

For the most part, the games that really don't hold up after a relatively short period of time are basically glorified tech demos like the early 3d stuff and, yes, Half-Life 2, which was about 80% Valve showing off all the cool things their new engine could do (awesome at the time, but pretty unimpressive once other companies could start iterating off of it in a more focused manner). Even games that at the time bragged about graphics can easily still be good games today. The first Halo, for example, or (your favorite Bioware game here), or Metal Gear Solid (pick your favorite, they all had top-notch graphics for their era, and even MGS1 is perfectly playable after briefly adapting to its dated controls). Otherwise, what makes old games feel bad is just the accumulation of quality of life improvements over time until you've eventually had enough that losing them all is no longer acceptable.

[pendell]

post cleared as response to original poster long overtaken by events.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[deuterio12]

I'd argue the RTS genre post-2000 holds up so well overall because between Blizzard and Westwood's efforts around the time they pretty much perfected the genre. Starcraft's flaws are few and almost purely the result of computational limitations of the time, and I think the fact that there was so little room for improvement over games like SC1 and Red Alert 2 is a big part of the reason the genre basically stagnated since. Why play the new offering when you could be playing Starcraft/RA2/Homeworld League of Legends/Dota(2)/Heroes of the Storm instead?


Fixed that for you. The reason RTS stagnated is because mobas became just a lot more popular.

You can try to claim they're completely different beasts, but they really aren't. Their core gameplay is virtually the same:
-Top down view with fog of war and minimap, mouse control to move your units
-Early game of farming resources and harassing the enemy.
-Use gathered resources to upgrade your army/hero.
-Slowly build up an advantage until you're so powerful you can just waltz over the enemy units.
-Final objective of destroying the enemy base.

The main difference is that mobas are a lot more open to the general public since you're usually only controling one unit instead of dozens/hundreds. Plus making multiplayer the default state.

Basically, playing a moba match will mostly satisfy the same itch that playing an RTS does, of slowly building up your force while keeping map control until you're strong enough to push into the enemy base and destroy it. And the game mechanics are about the same.

So if a company starts making a RTS nowadays, they ask themselves why not make a moba instead. And if they do try to go ahead with a more "classic" RTS, then they just won't get enough of a market share to justify properly polish the game over several years.

Still holding some hope for Age of Empires 4.

[Knaight]

Fixed that for you. The reason RTS stagnated is because mobas became just a lot more popular.

You can try to claim they're completely different beasts, but they really aren't. Their core gameplay is virtually the same:
-Top down view with fog of war and minimap, mouse control to move your units
-Early game of farming resources and harassing the enemy.
-Use gathered resources to upgrade your army/hero.
-Slowly build up an advantage until you're so powerful you can just waltz over the enemy units.
-Final objective of destroying the enemy base.

The main difference is that mobas are a lot more open to the general public since you're usually only controling one unit instead of dozens/hundreds. Plus making multiplayer the default state.

That main difference is pretty huge - and many of the similarities are just leftovers from MOBAs originating as RTS mods. The economic focus is all but lost, but more than that the tactics and strategy are dramatically different. The appeals really don't overlap much.

[deuterio12]

That main difference is pretty huge - and many of the similarities are just leftovers from MOBAs originating as RTS mods. The economic focus is all but lost, but more than that the tactics and strategy are dramatically different. The appeals really don't overlap much.

Experience is just another resource by any other name and maximizing its farming is key. Even HOTS technically may have no gold and item buy, but every map has some gimmick resource that you need to collect to get the extra edge against the enemy team.

Strategy-wise, they both put an heavy emphasis on map control and protecting your base while pushing your way inside the enemy base with multiple routes of approach, and as your base gets worn down either your side becomes weaker or the enemy gets stronger.

Tactics-wise, they still follow the same control schemes and there's a massive emphasis on kiting and ganking and knowing when to retreat.

And again there's the overwhelming snowball effect. In a FPS or fighting game or sports video game you can be at the brink of defeat and still pull off a win if your opponent blinks. But in a moba/RTS once your opponent gets an upgrade advantage they can just sit back and play at their leisure to crush you with raw superior stats. So even pro rts/moba teams will give up mid-game because the snowball has become too big and it's pointless to keep playing, whereas in basically every other videogame multiplayer the battle isn't truly over until the last second.