As someone who imports games a lot (in case you hadn't noticed) this was something I felt compelled to write on the momentum of personal interest alone. It's simply archaic (and regressive) that in 2014 Nintendo is pushing a region-locked console... a region-locked handheld console!
I know a lot of people don't understand the furore over region-locking as it doesn't effect them. But to the people it does effect it's an anti-consumer practice that, try as I might, I could only find one (rare, exceptional) case for.
Region-locking isn't just about importing games anymore:
[in a world where people live/move increasingly in international circles] region locking isn’t necessarily just about imports anymore, but the mismatch between hardware and software. Put simply, the debate has changed from simply playing games from abroad to playing games locally in a modern world where the term “local” has become fluid.
If there's any good rationale for region-locking (pro-consumer). Why is it that only Nintendo operate using this policy?
Microsoft, that company that championed draconian anti-consumer DRM prior to launching the Xbox One, and (by all accounts) the source of all evil, puts out a system that is more robust than yours in handling cross-region purchases, you know you’re doing something wrong.
Now, maybe I'm just missing something here. But is there a good, convincing pro-consumer rationale for region-locking? And is it really worth implementing the system when MS and Sony seem to be a-okay about dropping it?
Link
Log in to comment