According to Forbes, websites pertaining to media piracy amassed over 230 billion views worldwide in 2023. Estimates for 2025’s total range from a conservative 246 billion to over 300 billion. This uptick has copyright holders scrambling to keep their property from being released en masse, often by implementing extrinsic safeguards or coding checks into the files themselves. These plans, however, are often foiled in mere days by a piracy community adept at reverse-engineering and overriding these protections.
While piracy is unacceptable from a legal standpoint, many have concluded that it is not only morally acceptable, but righteous.
Among those to sway public opinion furthest on this issue, ironically, is Nintendo. Many players grew up playing Nintendo games, and as such, much of Nintendo’s branding capitalizes on nostalgia. Despite “Super Mario Bros.” being released over 40 years ago, new merchandise featuring its 8-bit renditions can be found on many a store shelf. Niche references to past “The Legend of Zelda” titles are liberal throughout the newer entries.
One would think, then, that said older games would be easily accessible. That could not be further from the truth.
While the Wii’s EShop successfully ported retro titles to modern systems for .99 cents, Nintendo has since implemented a subscription model. To access a relatively small pool of unoptimized retro games, users must pay $50 a year. While this price may seem low to some, the state of the economy has made this unaffordable to many, and the fact that these games are not updated for the Nintendo Switch makes the purchase even less appealing.
It is unsurprising that retro Nintendo games are among the easiest to access online. In fact, many can be played in the browser without the use of additional software.
Many users see piracy as a way to battle Nintendo’s artificial scarcity—a business strategy described by the Medical Executive Post as “the intentional limitation of the availability of a product or resource to create a sense of rarity, which often drives up its perceived value and price.”
It would cost Nintendo nearly nothing to put these retro games out to consumers, but, like many companies, they elect not to. As Gabriel V. Rindborg, a reporter for “The Guardian”, puts it, “Studios carve out fiefdoms, build walls and levy tolls for those who wish to visit. The result is artificial scarcity in a digital world that promised abundance.”
This can be similarly seen in streaming services. The average user must subscribe to more than one to keep up with the most popular shows and movies, and with prices trending upwards, keeping up legally has become unattainable for many. Their choices are either not to watch or to pirate the media. And, as connecting over shared interests is integral to socialization, so many people choose the latter.
Also, as many media pirates reserve their torrenting for first-party content, “indie” titles are given a leg up. This is especially prevalent in gaming. The developers of “Balatro” and “Peak”, for example, are able to put the money made into developing other titles, instead of using it to churn the hierarchy of a company. Several other independent developers have made statements encouraging users to pirate their games, as they would rather give up a modicum of profit and share their art than have people go without—which, ironically, made many purchase their games through legitimate means.
Whether to engage in piracy is, ultimately, an individual decision. However, by refusing to give a company money for unsavory business practices, you send the message that consumers are not forced to tolerate them. That you can seek your entertainment elsewhere. And, sometimes, it can lead to a better outcome.
