Nintendo today told SPOnG that is it not prepared to offer comment on the new product that a US-based online store, modchipstore.com, is planning to sell. Strange, as this product is expressly designed to compromise the Wii's anti-piracy software. It's called ‘WiiKey’ and it is publicly available on February 28th,.
According to the company:
Although modchipstore.com tells the world that, “The intended purpose of this chip is to allow you to use your game console to play imports and backups of software that you legally own, as is allowed by law. We accept no responsibility for the use of this device to play copies of games you do not own. Using the modchip to modify your console will void your warranty”, the reality, as we all know is to enable people to ‘play copies of illegal games you download from bittorrent’.
Huzza for being bad muthas, yeah! Except, of course, if you’re developing games and making your living from it, or if you're expecting developers to bother creating anything more original than the next stage of the big franchise.
Arguments rage about whether publishers are over-pricing games and then under-delivering on promises in regard to those games - or whether the costs of development are due to the demands of gamers for bigger and better 'experiences'.
These are healthy enough debates that deserve to be aired – but surely simply ripping stuff off is merely going to make publishers and platform holders more paranoid, more closed and less likely to encourage creativity?
What do you think? Are ‘back-up’ devices good or bad for games? Are games over-priced and un-delivering? Should games pirates be made to walk to plank? Are publishers simply being Metallica-like? Tell us below in the Forum.
According to the company:
”The WiiKey is your universal Solution!
The incrdible, fantastic, Wiikey modchip for the Nintendo Wii has arrived! This is one of the easiest modchips to install on any system. A quicksolder pattern on the PCB board removes the need for wires. All you need to do us solder onto the designated parts and you're finished!!! This awesome chip also boasts upgradeablity via Disc or DVD!
Other Features include: An optional off feature and LED to let you know when your Wiikey is on or off.”
The incrdible, fantastic, Wiikey modchip for the Nintendo Wii has arrived! This is one of the easiest modchips to install on any system. A quicksolder pattern on the PCB board removes the need for wires. All you need to do us solder onto the designated parts and you're finished!!! This awesome chip also boasts upgradeablity via Disc or DVD!
Other Features include: An optional off feature and LED to let you know when your Wiikey is on or off.”
Although modchipstore.com tells the world that, “The intended purpose of this chip is to allow you to use your game console to play imports and backups of software that you legally own, as is allowed by law. We accept no responsibility for the use of this device to play copies of games you do not own. Using the modchip to modify your console will void your warranty”, the reality, as we all know is to enable people to ‘play copies of illegal games you download from bittorrent’.
Huzza for being bad muthas, yeah! Except, of course, if you’re developing games and making your living from it, or if you're expecting developers to bother creating anything more original than the next stage of the big franchise.
Arguments rage about whether publishers are over-pricing games and then under-delivering on promises in regard to those games - or whether the costs of development are due to the demands of gamers for bigger and better 'experiences'.
These are healthy enough debates that deserve to be aired – but surely simply ripping stuff off is merely going to make publishers and platform holders more paranoid, more closed and less likely to encourage creativity?
What do you think? Are ‘back-up’ devices good or bad for games? Are games over-priced and un-delivering? Should games pirates be made to walk to plank? Are publishers simply being Metallica-like? Tell us below in the Forum.
Read More Like This
Comments
Showing the 20 most recent comments. Read all 21.
Ditto 16 Feb 2007 13:20
2/21
There will be a lot of people who will use this device to play import games until Datel releases a new Freeloader - because of this is company should be given some support.
zoydwheeler 16 Feb 2007 13:39
3/21
Yeh, I kind of agree with Adam M.
There's always going to be piracy - and a small minority of users/small time dodgy dealers who will rip games from bittorrent and the like - but when other regions are getting great games on a regular basis way before Europe (ie Trauma Center on Wii being the latest for me...) then those gamers who want to buy the games are going to use this type of thing to assist them playing import games...
I also look on game piracy like I look on music and DVD piracy - if I think that an album/movie/game is worth my £15/20/30 then I'll pay it... if I don't then I'll ignore it, or maybe if a friend recommends it I'd rip it to check it out... and then if it turns out to be better than expected sometimes I might even BUY the original...
There's always going to be piracy - and a small minority of users/small time dodgy dealers who will rip games from bittorrent and the like - but when other regions are getting great games on a regular basis way before Europe (ie Trauma Center on Wii being the latest for me...) then those gamers who want to buy the games are going to use this type of thing to assist them playing import games...
I also look on game piracy like I look on music and DVD piracy - if I think that an album/movie/game is worth my £15/20/30 then I'll pay it... if I don't then I'll ignore it, or maybe if a friend recommends it I'd rip it to check it out... and then if it turns out to be better than expected sometimes I might even BUY the original...
more comments below our sponsor's message
headcasephil 16 Feb 2007 17:49
4/21
RiseFromYourGrave wrote:
doesnt make any real sense to me, except to imply greed on the developers behalves, but i could be missing somethings like massive overheads unique to the gaming industry (but still.. theyd have to be pretty f**king huge)
it things like mode chips and p2p game downloads that make the price of games more because gameing companies/publishers have to make profit like all businesses do.
i meen if you have a coffee shop and a group of custers steel drinks the shop will find it harder to stay open because of loss of profit
also if you are not shore about a new game go and rent it if you like buy it if you dont well you lost about £2.50 not much at all
it things like mode chips and p2p game downloads that make the price of games more because gameing companies/publishers have to make profit like all businesses do.
i meen if you have a coffee shop and a group of custers steel drinks the shop will find it harder to stay open because of loss of profit
also if you are not shore about a new game go and rent it if you like buy it if you dont well you lost about £2.50 not much at all
RiseFromYourGrave 16 Feb 2007 17:57
5/21
if you think piracy is an adequate reason for the massive inflation of game prices in comparison to film and music.. well you are mistaken
Smelly 16 Feb 2007 22:48
6/21
Right, want to know why a game costs more than movies?
1. Most games costs a few million to make (same as a cheap film)
2. HOWEVER, games sell to a smaller proportion of the world (not as many gamers as film go-ers)
3. Games have a rough shelf life of 3 months before gamers consider them "out of date". That's 3 months to recoup all development costs.
4. Movies come out in cinema, then dvd rental, then dvd sales, then endless tv repeats, etc etc. Lots of ways for movies to recoup costs.
5. Games come out once (well and maybe on budget) and have to recoup costs in one chunk.. many dont.
6. A Movie lasts appx 120 mins.. a game will (hopefully) last about 10 times that.. but only cost 4 times the cost.
And as long as your careful with your purcahses and only purchase good games which'll last you a long time.. then imho they're worth the price.
Mass Piracy will just encourage publishers not to publish games on the system (like the dreamcast)... Which is a BAD thing for wii owners!
1. Most games costs a few million to make (same as a cheap film)
2. HOWEVER, games sell to a smaller proportion of the world (not as many gamers as film go-ers)
3. Games have a rough shelf life of 3 months before gamers consider them "out of date". That's 3 months to recoup all development costs.
4. Movies come out in cinema, then dvd rental, then dvd sales, then endless tv repeats, etc etc. Lots of ways for movies to recoup costs.
5. Games come out once (well and maybe on budget) and have to recoup costs in one chunk.. many dont.
6. A Movie lasts appx 120 mins.. a game will (hopefully) last about 10 times that.. but only cost 4 times the cost.
And as long as your careful with your purcahses and only purchase good games which'll last you a long time.. then imho they're worth the price.
Mass Piracy will just encourage publishers not to publish games on the system (like the dreamcast)... Which is a BAD thing for wii owners!
RiseFromYourGrave 17 Feb 2007 03:04
7/21
i did write a big bitch-arse damnation of the crap you just spewed, but drunk as i am, i thought better of it
maybe another time, enjoy your incorrectness
maybe another time, enjoy your incorrectness
DoctorDee 17 Feb 2007 10:54
8/21
The enemy here is not DRM (wow, I never thought I'd say that!!) but region locking.
Region locking should be made illegal - it's a way for companies, who have (Less, Nintendo, but certanly Sony and Microsoft) campaigned for a global free market, so thay can make things cheap in Asia and sell them expensive in America and Europe, then funnel the profits off to Bermuda, to restrict that market.
These companies act globally when it comes to the free movement of capital - but they act regionally when it comes to the makling of profit - and the protection of their margins.
It's bullshit!
Piracy is wrong. There's no two ways about it, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a f**king retard who should come and work in my garden all day for no recompense. Developers deserve an income, and when the games get pirated - they are the ones who lose out...
Is the price of games reasonable? Well, yes and no. Some publishers are bathing is asses milk and champagne, while others are finding it hard to make ends meet. They maybe, should be a little bit more realistic, we have (more or less) a one size fits all pricing strategy on games - but not all games are as good as each other... maybe that should change. The price - not the "all games being as good as each other" part ;-)
Region locking should be made illegal - it's a way for companies, who have (Less, Nintendo, but certanly Sony and Microsoft) campaigned for a global free market, so thay can make things cheap in Asia and sell them expensive in America and Europe, then funnel the profits off to Bermuda, to restrict that market.
These companies act globally when it comes to the free movement of capital - but they act regionally when it comes to the makling of profit - and the protection of their margins.
It's bullshit!
Piracy is wrong. There's no two ways about it, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a f**king retard who should come and work in my garden all day for no recompense. Developers deserve an income, and when the games get pirated - they are the ones who lose out...
Is the price of games reasonable? Well, yes and no. Some publishers are bathing is asses milk and champagne, while others are finding it hard to make ends meet. They maybe, should be a little bit more realistic, we have (more or less) a one size fits all pricing strategy on games - but not all games are as good as each other... maybe that should change. The price - not the "all games being as good as each other" part ;-)
tyrion 17 Feb 2007 12:28
9/21
DoctorDee wrote:
The enemy here is not DRM (wow, I never thought I'd say that!!) but region locking.
Not trying to be too pedantic, but I think you meant the problem is not copy protection. Region locking is a DRM scheme.
DoctorDee wrote:
Region locking should be made illegal - it's a way for companies, who have (Less, Nintendo, but certanly Sony and Microsoft) campaigned for a global free market, so thay can make things cheap in Asia and sell them expensive in America and Europe, then funnel the profits off to Bermuda, to restrict that market.
Yet neither the 360 nor the PS3 have mandatory region locking for games, but the Wii does. It's a funny old world, isn't it?
Please note, I'm not defending Microsoft or Sony, they have had region locking in the past and many 360 games do have region locking now, nor am I slamming Nintendo since their handhelds have never been region locked that I am aware of. It's just an interesting point that the two mega-corps don't have mandatory region locking and the gamers' friend does have, even trying to push it on the VC.
Smelly 18 Feb 2007 17:25
10/21
RiseFromYourGrave wrote:
i did write a big bitch-arse damnation of the crap you just spewed,
Please do post.. and tell me where im wrong. I could do with a laugh.
What are you going to argue? Games dont cost a fortune to make? Games dont have a short shelf life? Movies dont come out on multiple formats over many years? Movies dont have a bigger audience than games? Piracy didnt kill the dreamcast?
Come on.. i could do with a laugh. Im sure other people would love to laugh at you too.
RiseFromYourGrave 18 Feb 2007 18:32
11/21
well first off i apologise for my tone, the booze turns me into a w****r sometimes
but i do still think your reasons werent convincing enough explaination of the price gulf between games and film
1. Most games costs a few million to make (same as a cheap film)
right, were looking for reasons that its more expensive though
yes, definitely less gamers than people who enjoy films. but isnt the cinema on its arse? and also, in my experience gamers do seem to be much more enthused and buy more games than your joe average buys films.. like i say i do agree with you here but in this day and age it doesnt seem like a full explaination by a long shot
i just dont agree with that, maybe most people dont do 'retro' gaming, but if the system is current, games can sell for years. maybe the first 3 months is where the big surge is, but something similar would go for films too.
games companies get money from re-releases (special editions or cut price editions), retro compilations, rentals, online fees, additional content, accessories, sponsorships, etc
this didnt really make sense to me.. if i could have 500 hours of fun with a yo-yo should i pay hundreds or thousands of pounds for it?
ive never seen any evidence that the dreamcast was killed by piracy. ive also never looked
@DoctorDee
I agree, region locking is total bullshit. they wont be able to get away with it forever though. Piracy is of course wrong too when it results in a lost sale.
but i do still think your reasons werent convincing enough explaination of the price gulf between games and film
Smelly wrote:
1. Most games costs a few million to make (same as a cheap film)
right, were looking for reasons that its more expensive though
Smelly wrote:
2. HOWEVER, games sell to a smaller proportion of the world (not as many gamers as film go-ers)
yes, definitely less gamers than people who enjoy films. but isnt the cinema on its arse? and also, in my experience gamers do seem to be much more enthused and buy more games than your joe average buys films.. like i say i do agree with you here but in this day and age it doesnt seem like a full explaination by a long shot
Smelly wrote:
3. Games have a rough shelf life of 3 months before gamers consider them "out of date". That's 3 months to recoup all development costs.
i just dont agree with that, maybe most people dont do 'retro' gaming, but if the system is current, games can sell for years. maybe the first 3 months is where the big surge is, but something similar would go for films too.
Smelly wrote:
4. Movies come out in cinema, then dvd rental, then dvd sales, then endless tv repeats, etc etc. Lots of ways for movies to recoup costs.
games companies get money from re-releases (special editions or cut price editions), retro compilations, rentals, online fees, additional content, accessories, sponsorships, etc
Smelly wrote:
6. A Movie lasts appx 120 mins.. a game will (hopefully) last about 10 times that.. but only cost 4 times the cost.
this didnt really make sense to me.. if i could have 500 hours of fun with a yo-yo should i pay hundreds or thousands of pounds for it?
ive never seen any evidence that the dreamcast was killed by piracy. ive also never looked
@DoctorDee
I agree, region locking is total bullshit. they wont be able to get away with it forever though. Piracy is of course wrong too when it results in a lost sale.
Ditto 18 Feb 2007 20:21
12/21
RiseFromYourGrave wrote:
Smelly wrote:
2. HOWEVER, games sell to a smaller proportion of the world (not as many gamers as film go-ers)
yes, definitely less gamers than people who enjoy films. but isnt the cinema on its arse? and also, in my experience gamers do seem to be much more enthused and buy more games than your joe average buys films.. like i say i do agree with you here but in this day and age it doesnt seem like a full explaination by a long shot
I think Smelly is totally right, because most people I know own a reasonable number of DVDs but fewer own many games (if any).
Smelly wrote:
3. Games have a rough shelf life of 3 months before gamers consider them "out of date". That's 3 months to recoup all development costs.
i just dont agree with that, maybe most people dont do 'retro' gaming, but if the system is current, games can sell for years. maybe the first 3 months is where the big surge is, but something similar would go for films too.
I do agree with this. I can buy DVDs for 20 to 30 years after release and the studios still make money. I can only buy games up to 5 years after release, but normally 2 years. For example, I wanted to buy Sphinx and the Cursed Mummy recently, but it was discontinued two years ago.
Whichever way you look at it games have a shorter life than films.
Smelly wrote:
4. Movies come out in cinema, then dvd rental, then dvd sales, then endless tv repeats, etc etc. Lots of ways for movies to recoup costs.
games companies get money from re-releases (special editions or cut price editions), retro compilations, rentals, online fees, additional content, accessories, sponsorships, etc
Yeah, but films can do all that.
Smelly wrote:
6. A Movie lasts appx 120 mins.. a game will (hopefully) last about 10 times that.. but only cost 4 times the cost.
this didnt really make sense to me.. if i could have 500 hours of fun with a yo-yo should i pay hundreds or thousands of pounds for it?
Actually, this is one of the reasons I used to buy games instead of films. If I fork out £30 on a game then I might get 25 hours of good entertainment rather than 2 hours of entertainment from a £16 (at that time) DVD.
Good games represent much better value for money than films.
RiseFromYourGrave 18 Feb 2007 20:49
13/21
"Adam M" wrote:
I do agree with this. I can buy DVDs for 20 to 30 years after release and the studios still make money. I can only buy games up to 5 years after release, but normally 2 years. For example, I wanted to buy Sphinx and the Cursed Mummy recently, but it was discontinued two years ago.
Whichever way you look at it games have a shorter life than films.
i was arguing against the 3 month thing. but if most games have a 5 year lifespan as far as the public are concerned, and id say that is a reasonable statement, is that a reason for a 50 pound price tag?
"Adam M" wrote:
Yeah, but films can do all that.
i know, but my point was theres plenty of extra revenue in games past the first sell
"Adam M" wrote:
Actually, this is one of the reasons I used to buy games instead of films. If I fork out £30 on a game then I might get 25 hours of good entertainment rather than 2 hours of entertainment from a £16 (at that time) DVD.
my point still stands though, time consumed by an activity doesnt equal the monetary worth of given activity, in the case of film and games
wether a good game is more value for money than a good film, well each case must be judged on its own merits
schnide 19 Feb 2007 10:54
14/21
Smelly wrote:
Piracy didnt kill the dreamcast?
Actually, not that we have any way of proving this, but I don't think piracy killed the Dreamcast.
I'm not saying it helped or that it wasn't a problem, but the Dreamcast's problems were far bigger than piracy alone.
Besides, there was once a console called the Playstation, and that was more pirated than any other console I've ever known, and that didn't seem to do too badly.
RiseFromYourGrave 19 Feb 2007 22:32
15/21
yes, ive always seen piracy as being much more prevalent with movies and audio than games. i guess its partly to do with the expertise needed, 99.999999999999999% of the public dont know about modchips, but everyone copies cds for mates or buys dvds 'dahn the mahhket'
all in all, it just isnt a reason for the higher prices
all in all, it just isnt a reason for the higher prices
PreciousRoi 20 Feb 2007 01:49
16/21
I'd have to agree that movies represent a better stream of revenue in perpetuity than video games. Games do have a shorter shelf life. Is Halo 3 worth the sixty bucks or so its going to go for? P'raps, p'raps not. I certainly never regretted any of the mony I spent on my copy of Halo or Halo 2(se).
But theres worse games at the same price, despite them having less reason for costing that much. ESPN Football was one of the few cases where a publisher said to themselves, 'you know what, we can release this for a much more affordable price, and still deliver an innovative and enjoyable experience'. Of course, they had to compete with one of the 700-pound gorillas of the industry.
The bit about piracy killing the Dreamcast is probably suspect. I thought it was the PlayStation, though I have heard some Sony-related conspiracy theories.
But theres worse games at the same price, despite them having less reason for costing that much. ESPN Football was one of the few cases where a publisher said to themselves, 'you know what, we can release this for a much more affordable price, and still deliver an innovative and enjoyable experience'. Of course, they had to compete with one of the 700-pound gorillas of the industry.
The bit about piracy killing the Dreamcast is probably suspect. I thought it was the PlayStation, though I have heard some Sony-related conspiracy theories.
majin dboy 20 Feb 2007 11:07
17/21
the dreamcast died,because it didnt appeal to enough people,yes ther was piracy but nearly every console has dealt with and been popular enuf to survive.
if i can get cheap games sum where,and its safe ,i will do it.i love the game industry but wen it comes down to it i would prefer to pay £4.99 for a game,or free rather than £40-£50.
call me unethical,or a parasite.it comes down to money.
if i can get cheap games sum where,and its safe ,i will do it.i love the game industry but wen it comes down to it i would prefer to pay £4.99 for a game,or free rather than £40-£50.
call me unethical,or a parasite.it comes down to money.
Ditto 20 Feb 2007 11:23
18/21
majin dboy wrote:
if i can get cheap games sum where,and its safe ,i will do it.i love the game industry but wen it comes down to it i would prefer to pay £4.99 for a game,or free rather than £40-£50.
call me unethical,or a parasite.it comes down to money.
call me unethical,or a parasite.it comes down to money.
The problem is that you want something for nothing.
Ultimately if it costs companies money to make games then you will never get games for free. The money you pay goes directly to funding the next generation of games.
Everyone would like games free if they can get them. However most people would realise that they are doing something grossly illegal and unethical, and most people, if they enjoy a game would feel like maybe they want to support future development of games rather than take, take, take.
I can understand piracy in cases where you will never be able to obtain a game, for example if it was never released in your country or in your language, but otherwise it's the same as walking into a shop and stealing the game.
majin dboy 20 Feb 2007 12:52
19/21
no it is not.
Ultimately is a very powerful word and it takes my arguement out of context.the bottom line is that i can get games for free until it hits crisis point i would continue to do so.other people still buy games,so the game industry can support itself and me and the people who use pirated games can live of ther "input".
just to let you know this is my hypathetical arguement,i paid thru the nose for an imported version of super smash bros(£70) and star wars(£70) on the GC,i also paid full price for my NTSC GC and all of my 20 odd games.full price for my wii,5games,DS,GBA 10 games,DS Lite 7games etc.
i dont see that big a problem if i can get games for free.i dont own any pirated games,but if they are accessible i will get them.
Ultimately is a very powerful word and it takes my arguement out of context.the bottom line is that i can get games for free until it hits crisis point i would continue to do so.other people still buy games,so the game industry can support itself and me and the people who use pirated games can live of ther "input".
just to let you know this is my hypathetical arguement,i paid thru the nose for an imported version of super smash bros(£70) and star wars(£70) on the GC,i also paid full price for my NTSC GC and all of my 20 odd games.full price for my wii,5games,DS,GBA 10 games,DS Lite 7games etc.
i dont see that big a problem if i can get games for free.i dont own any pirated games,but if they are accessible i will get them.
schnide 20 Feb 2007 16:53
20/21
Adam M wrote:
I can understand piracy in cases where you will never be able to obtain a game, for example if it was never released in your country or in your language, but otherwise it's the same as walking into a shop and stealing the game.
You know, as much as I want to agree with this, I don't think it's true.
I'm more moralistic than most people and don't agree with stealing or pirating. That said, pirating media is *not* the same as stealing a car because of the relational nature of the product.
If you steal a car, the dealer can't sell it.
If you copy a disc, the dealer can still sell the original. The only loss comes in where you would have bought an original if you couldn't buy the copy.
I can play copies because I want to play imports. But I only copy or download games when I wouldn't have bought them anyway.
That takes a lot of willpower, and it's willpower most don't have. If I ever do download a game and like it enough to buy it, then I'll buy it.
That said, it takes a lot of willpower (and cash)..
OptimusP 21 Feb 2007 12:51
21/21
I concur, I download games sometimes because they're allready out in another region but not mine and i can't bloody wait. Afterwards, if it was a good game, i do buy the game...when it's down to budgetpricing or boxed as a anthology...