DarkPenguin

Company: "we are losing money due to our antiquated business model"
Accounting: "well we can either cut dollars pushing out our existing model or we can cut financing to adapting to a new profitable model"
Company: "Do the second one. No need to change something that works..."

This conversation occurs far far to often in printed media

Honestly I feel like this is would be like buying a used book and having to pay for the last chapter. The problem is yes EA is going to get away with this people they win either way. If the customer buys a New game and then sells it then they make their money. After that GameStop was making all the money anyway so it's only profit after the second hand.

This fight will all come down to language of the cover. Like the article: if EA sells a game because it's online functionality and then removes that functionality then they will be in a worse funk than Sony over Other-OS. You just simply don't promise a customer something and then make them pay for it again.

@Drakkenfyre I agree. In this instance it was relatively well deserved for his idiocy.

However as Sony discovered with the PSP: Pirates are going to pirate but DRM and schemes to protect this code are meant to keep honest people honest. Using a large amount of federal dollars to fight a war in a legal grey area is absurd. It seems a slight bit devious to me that they are pursuing these people who cause an literally immeasurable amount of damage so they can make more money from the lawsuits than any comprehensible equivalent to "lost sales"(which no money goes to the original developers of the pirated games and fits under no patent law that forces them into these lawsuits to keep the rights). Pirates aren't going to buy games because they are pirates, they spend their time pirating because that is what they do and they aren't going to stop. They know it's inconvenient, and legally grey but it's things like this that fuel the fire rather than deter.

If Nintendo really wanted this to stop it wont but if they would continue to develop their code to make it more and more inconvenient it would minimize the number of people who steal the game.

P.S. While there is legal precedence in California against the R4 that doesn't make these illegal in the United States; and while mostly semantic "Game copiers" is a horrible definition for these devices. Nothing about it copies a game but rather removes the restrictions to execute code to circumvent DRM and play illegally copied games.

@Drakkenfyre

I don't know if you got the article but Nintendo isn't going after the people who are distributing the games but rather the people who sell a product that gives people the functionality.

I understand that the seller probably very well knows that the intention of the buyer is to play cracked roms(sometimes copied illegally), but that is still a consumer choice. Nintendo also has a history of strangling independent developers by refusing to release an SDK even if the developer is willing to pay for it(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob's_Game). So these devices can be used in legitimate ways but none of them Nintendo likes because they don't get paid for homebrew apps and they also can't control the content of those apps.

There are many cases that set precedence for allowing reverse engineered software to be used on a proprietary devices(see: http://www.sega-16.com/feature_page.php?id=9&title=Genesis%20Firsts:%20Reverse%20Engineering) and if you ask me blaming the hardware is another way for the company to control consumer use of "their" device that we just happen to give them money to borrow.

Yes pirates ruin it for those creative people who want to make legitimate and creative games without having to pay in and answer to the great Nintendo Gods. That does not make it ok for them to choke out the ability to use the hardware in any way the consumer who paid to own it,

Monitor.

Ronald dinho

Colleges always seem to go really overkill With their wireless network requirements. Southern polytech in GA uses 802.11x ttyl which the iPad does not support. But I guess the tuition difference explains these school's willingness to accommodate users.

The thing is it didn't. It was mean to fail from the start. If it was a consession to the riaa then apple obvious was going to put just enough time and spotlight on it that they had to in order to shut them up.

First of all: Brilliant marketing.

Second: Who cares if it's offensive? There is a warning for mature content and it's not like it's plastered on billboards or something where you have to see it. It's an app which you have to find and choose to download. I will restate what has been stated many a time: people need to get over themselves.

I would enjoy some gear.