It's just bonkers to me because they do everything for profit anyway; what the fuck profit do they get from not selling shit anymore? I said this not long ago about Nintendo, but other companies are guilty of it too. Spending money attempting to stop piracy, instead of making money by just giving customers what they fucking want. What crazy company secrets are they hiding that not continuing to sell a product is better than selling it?

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 4 weeks ago

It's like a toxic romantic partner: if I can't make a lot of money doing this one thing, then no one can.

Come to think of it, a lot of late stage capitalism behavior is like a toxic partner.

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 weeks ago

Not in any way defending Nintendo - seriously, fuck them, I will pirate their entire catalogue and not feel one iota of guilt.

But, what mix of those 87% of games no longer commercially available fall into one of these three categories:

yearly releases of game franchises (e.g. FIFA/NFL/NHL/NBA ‘94, ‘95, ‘96 etc.)
unofficial releases (e.g. bootleg Christian NES carts)
impossible to re-release 1:1 due to music licensing issues (anything with EA TRAX, Vice City/San Andreas etc.)

So I guess what I’m asking is, what percentage of those games aren’t economically viable to resell, or are stuck in licence limbo?