Hacking Is wiikeu is similar to wii wode?

[nunavat2010]

The official site doesn't have any pictures (or I didn't look hard enough) or doesn't say anything about the cost. I thought wiiwode was close to the price of wii and the description vaguely resembles wii wode?

The other thread has been locked, so started this?

 

[uyjulian]

wiikeü is a chip
wii mode is a software mode

???

 

[Cyan]

He didn't say "Wii Mode", but Wode.
it wasn't a spelling error.

The WODE is a Disc drive replacement, you connect it in place of the original Wii Disc Drive.
The Wii then access the WODE as if it was a real Disc Drive. no soldering needed, just unplug the ribbon cable of the Disc Drive and connect WODE instead.


To reply to Nunavat: WiiU seems to be a WODE-like device, based on the description on their website.

Wiikey U is the first and only optical drive emulator
[...]
No soldering required

 

[Slimmmmmm]

Just to take a guess...

I think it will be as Cyan said, and then from this cable will be another cable leading outside of the console to a device that plugs into one of the USB ports (for power) and has an input for a USB HDD and/or SD card etc.

 

[uyjulian]

ohh, ...

 

[SnAQ]

What are you talking about?

 

[nunavat2010]

Here is a link for the wode.

http://www.wodejukebox.com/wodestandard.php

I think it did have a version of linux.

 

[blaisedinsd]

How long does it typically take for something like this to be released once it's announced? Will it initially be expensive? How much do these types of devices cost historically?

 

[beano311]

How long does it typically take for something like this to be released once it's announced? Will it initially be expensive? How much do these types of devices cost historically?

No idea about time frame, but take a look at WODE (the Wii Opitical Drive Emulator) prices, around $79. Also take into account Cobra ODE for the PS3, announced in January, supposed to be released in March, however it's still not out. Granted development on that is probably delayed because they're still trying to find a way to get drive keys for the newer model slim PS3s (3K+). Also, it'll probably cost over $100 (around $130 I think I saw for preorders) when it launches.

 

[Ray Lewis]

Prevent piracy on Wii U, keep 3rd party support....

 

[Rydian]

Prevent piracy on Wii U, keep 3rd party support....

Just like the PS3, 360, PSP, and DS lost third-party support.

Wait.

 

[n1ckn4m3]

Just like the PS3, 360, PSP, and DS lost third-party support.

Wait.

Actually, yes, kind of like how the PSP lost third party support (look at the amount of games released over the life of the system vs. other handheld consoles, excluding the abortion that is the Vita -- several developers have specifically stated that they did not localize or release games in the US for the PSP solely due to piracy on the system). Another example is the Dreamcast. The system was hacked less than a year after its release, and self-booting games that didn't require a bootdisc were out shortly after. Once it became as simple as downloading an ISO and burning it to a disc, the number of developers releasing for the hardware dropped substantially. I'm not claiming that it was the only reason the Dreamcast folded, but it was pointed to by several of the developers as a reason why they did not release games for the console.

The only time that piracy hasn't had an almost immediate and direct impact is when it requires the physical purchase of a chip and installation by someone slightly more knowledgeable than the average. For example, the PS1, PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox360 and Gamecube. All of those consoles had hacks, but they all required purchase of a separate device (excepting early model PS3s with firmware never updated past 3.55, those can be hacked with software only, newer firmware requires a downgrader device be purchased) -- be it a swap disc, mod chip, action replay, drive programmer, etc. Due to this, the prevalence of hacked consoles is notably smaller than the prevalence of hacked Wiis or PSPs. As such, the impact of piracy on these systems is notably lower due to the lack of a freely available tool to modify the console -- and this results in the lack of third party drop-off experienced by the other consoles I mentioned.

When piracy can be done at home easily with no additional purchase through software alone, it does have a notable impact on whether third party developers choose to develop for the system. When third party developers have openly come out and said this themselves, it's not really an arguable point that it doesn't at least contribute. It may not be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but it is definitely a contributor. Considering how poorly the WiiU is doing so far, I don't think it needs the straw.

 

[Rydian]

Wii, DS.

Correlation in some but notably not others is generally a sign that causation is not the name of the game.

 

[n1ckn4m3]

DS still required a hardware purchase to hack (flashcard), so it doesn't really work for your example...

I will concede the point on the Wii -- somehow it managed to continue a good stream of first and third party titles (ignoring the shovelware) even after it became trivially easy to hack and pirate games on. I would contest that the Wii is the exception in the situation and not the rule, but you're right that it is quite a debatable point and it is diverting the thread off-topic.

 

[Rydian]

It's a hard mod yes, but tossing $15 or less (not even counting the $4 original-model R4 prices today) on a flash cart is decidedly different buying and installing a mod chip, especially since most of the early ones needed soldering. Wasn't until embedded systems because plausible and cheap that we started getting no-soldor man-in-the-middle devices.

And shovelware is third-party titles, is it not?

Not to mention all the systems that died without piracy even existing during their lifetime, etc.

 

[Ray Lewis]

Actually, yes, kind of like how the PSP lost third party support (look at the amount of games released over the life of the system vs. other handheld consoles, excluding the abortion that is the Vita -- several developers have specifically stated that they did not localize or release games in the US for the PSP solely due to piracy on the system). Another example is the Dreamcast. The system was hacked less than a year after its release, and self-booting games that didn't require a bootdisc were out shortly after. Once it became as simple as downloading an ISO and burning it to a disc, the number of developers releasing for the hardware dropped substantially. I'm not claiming that it was the only reason the Dreamcast folded, but it was pointed to by several of the developers as a reason why they did not release games for the console.

The only time that piracy hasn't had an almost immediate and direct impact is when it requires the physical purchase of a chip and installation by someone slightly more knowledgeable than the average. For example, the PS1, PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox360 and Gamecube. All of those consoles had hacks, but they all required purchase of a separate device (excepting early model PS3s with firmware never updated past 3.55, those can be hacked with software only, newer firmware requires a downgrader device be purchased) -- be it a swap disc, mod chip, action replay, drive programmer, etc. Due to this, the prevalence of hacked consoles is notably smaller than the prevalence of hacked Wiis or PSPs. As such, the impact of piracy on these systems is notably lower due to the lack of a freely available tool to modify the console -- and this results in the lack of third party drop-off experienced by the other consoles I mentioned.

When piracy can be done at home easily with no additional purchase through software alone, it does have a notable impact on whether third party developers choose to develop for the system. When third party developers have openly come out and said this themselves, it's not really an arguable point that it doesn't at least contribute. It may not be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but it is definitely a contributor. Considering how poorly the WiiU is doing so far, I don't think it needs the straw.

This has been rehashed. Okay; show sales before and after hacks. Let's see that proof the hacks changed trajectories. Even a correlation here. Dreamcast had nowhere near the exclusives, and Nintendo has began slow and devs come along once units sell. Base ownership before/after hacks made public and usable format? Heard opinions like you present but no data. PSP needed battery opened and a pin taken out at first. Dreamcast games could be burned but not like those were easily found online (what others have said).

Devs waiting for install base for Wii U. Wii, 360; most pirated and home brewed. Systems cited as proof piracy killed them were usually dying and were going to die. Systems also get old. PSP 1001, 2000, 3000, Go...Vita (in line, massive upgrade). To revise a system that much shows it was failing? Again, let's see numbers before/after hacks. We could play the interpretation game all day. This morning, saw research company found pirates spend, on average, 300% more. Did not dive into it. If it were 90% base pirating, okay, but show where piracy was higher than 10% of owners and piracy hacks correlated with drop in sales (hardware and/or software).

 

[n1ckn4m3]

I think when a developer openly says that they refuse to develop for a system due to the rampant piracy, that's all the proof needed to illustrate that high piracy causes a loss of third party support. The data you're looking for does exist, in multiple different forms. As you put, it's open to interpretation.

I never claimed that pirates would have purchased 100% of the games they pirate, that's a silly argument and one that doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny. My point has been that rampant piracy on a system causes a lack of third party developer support. I didn't say it impacted sales of the consoles or the software, I didn't say that pirates do or don't spend more or less money than anyone else. None of those were points I was trying to make. The direct impact I was referring to was the impact of piracy on the third party developers release quantity.

I specifically stated that historically, high piracy has caused a low attach and release quantity for third party games. There are many PSP and Dreamcast developers who have been quoted as saying the same. I'll trust them, as they were the people who were going to develop games that decided not to or not to publish in the regions with high piracy. Even a single third party developer saying they are not publishing game x/y/z due to piracy proves my point -- it's a very specific point I'm discussing here.

The only correlation I did was correlating the data about whether or not system hacks required hardware, their resulting prevalence, and the impact that has on the third party developers intent to write, localize, or distribute software for the platform. To this point, that has not yet been refuted. Rydian got the closest by emphasizing the fact that the Wii is an easy hack but still has very good sales numbers. My counterpoint to that would be that the average purchaser of the Wii was not a hardware hacker. That system sold to people primarily outside of the core gaming circles (hell, my father and my grandparents have one). These people are not interested in piracy, they're not interested in system hacking. You would not see the same group of gamers purchasing a PS3 or an Xbox360, and definitely not a PSP or a Vita.

The data provided seems to clearly indicate that systems with software only hacks that make piracy available have a higher prevalence of third party developers claiming that their choice of not releasing titles was due to piracy than on systems where piracy required the purchase of a third party device in order to function. Even $1 is a cost of entry to someone with no method of paying that cost online, who could easily download and execute software on their hardware if such software existed.

In any case, I still hope they don't hack the WiiU to enable piracy quickly. I'd love homebrew capabilities, but the developers of software for the console do NOT need one more reason not to port their games to it. Even if you can argue against all of the points I've made, the perception to the developers is the most important -- and historically they have been outspoken when discussing releasing games on systems with high piracy rates.

 

[Ray Lewis]

I think when a developer openly says that they refuse to develop for a system due to the rampant piracy, that's all the proof needed to illustrate that high piracy causes a loss of third party support. The data you're looking for does exist, in multiple different forms. As you put, it's open to interpretation.

I never claimed that pirates would have purchased 100% of the games they pirate, that's a silly argument and one that doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny. My point has been that rampant piracy on a system causes a lack of third party developer support. I didn't say it impacted sales of the consoles or the software, I didn't say that pirates do or don't spend more or less money than anyone else. None of those were points I was trying to make. The direct impact I was referring to was the impact of piracy on the third party developers release quantity.

I specifically stated that historically, high piracy has caused a low attach and release quantity for third party games. There are many PSP and Dreamcast developers who have been quoted as saying the same. I'll trust them, as they were the people who were going to develop games that decided not to or not to publish in the regions with high piracy. Even a single third party developer saying they are not publishing game x/y/z due to piracy proves my point -- it's a very specific point I'm discussing here.

The only correlation I did was correlating the data about whether or not system hacks required hardware, their resulting prevalence, and the impact that has on the third party developers intent to write, localize, or distribute software for the platform. To this point, that has not yet been refuted. Rydian got the closest by emphasizing the fact that the Wii is an easy hack but still has very good sales numbers. My counterpoint to that would be that the average purchaser of the Wii was not a hardware hacker. That system sold to people primarily outside of the core gaming circles (hell, my father and my grandparents have one). These people are not interested in piracy, they're not interested in system hacking. You would not see the same group of gamers purchasing a PS3 or an Xbox360, and definitely not a PSP or a Vita.

The data provided seems to clearly indicate that systems with software only hacks that make piracy available have a higher prevalence of third party developers claiming that their choice of not releasing titles was due to piracy than on systems where piracy required the purchase of a third party device in order to function. Even $1 is a cost of entry to someone with no method of paying that cost online, who could easily download and execute software on their hardware if such software existed.

In any case, I still hope they don't hack the WiiU to enable piracy quickly. I'd love homebrew capabilities, but the developers of software for the console do NOT need one more reason not to port their games to it. Even if you can argue against all of the points I've made, the perception to the developers is the most important -- and historically they have been outspoken when discussing releasing games on systems with high piracy rates.

From last paragraph, people should visit Maternal's thread on 3 cores. Linux and coding knowledge needed.

 

[Rydian]

I think when a developer openly says that they refuse to develop for a system due to the rampant piracy, that's all the proof needed to illustrate that high piracy causes a loss of third party support. The data you're looking for does exist, in multiple different forms. As you put, it's open to interpretation.

An individual's views are not automatically the views of everybody simply because the person is of a specific group.

The Wii is the prime example, but that's only if you can say something like "Only softmods are open to the public" with a straight face. You're on GBATemp, you can look around you and see how many little kids use flash carts, how many parents of kids we get that set up flash carts, how many people buy flash carts in bulk to re-sell in their area for profit, and even that some flash cart softwares actually have a "child" mode that locks away the options to delete games and saves, because of how common these devices are and how many technologically-illiterate (and sometimes wholly illiterate) people use them.

I could also make a mention of the number of shops and individual people that will do hardmods (or a softmod that requires certain hardware, such as fetching the PS3's drive keys in order to install a CFW) for a price.
http://norfolk.craigslist.org/vgm/3677996892.html
That's one ad posted a few days ago in my area, for example. The guy even made banners advertising all the services he does. There's also GBATemp members that will do the stuff. Hell, Devin actually offered to do a PS3 for free as part of using a downgrader/flasher he got for a review.


Yes, there are people who will refuse to publish for a console because of piracy. There are also people who will refuse to publish for a console because of a ton of other reasons that may or may not even make sense, going into moral values, perceived audience, etc.

For a more serious and less broad example, there's also people who won't publish certain products for technical reasons. For example, Super Meat Boy never made it to Wiiware because of the 50MB limit.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/106429-Super-Meat-Boy-on-WiiWare-Would-Be-a-Piece-of-Sh-t
But the 50MB limit didn't stop a ton of other Wiiware from coming out.

 

[SifJar]

Yes, there are people who will refuse to publish for a console because of piracy.

And that right there, as I understand it, is exactly the point n1ckn4m3 was making. Although I do agree that n1ckn4m3 seems to be exaggerating the effect somewhat. But his point remains; piracy will lose third party developers. Will it be a large number of developers? Probably not. Will they be big name developers? Unlikely. But there will be lost third party support. (But it doesn't really matter that much).