Update: This popular deal is still available.
Super Shop has for
Pre-order: The Legend of Zelda: Tears of The Kingdom (Nintendo Switch) for $67.99 - $8 w/ code
SBSPZELDA =
$59.99.
Shipping is free.
Thanks to Staff Member
PinkSakura for finding this deal.
- Note: Release date: 5/12/2023
Game Synopsis:
- An epic adventure across the land and skies of Hyrule awaits in The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom for Nintendo Switch. The adventure is yours to create in a world fueled by your imagination.
- In this sequel to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, you'll decide your own path through the sprawling landscapes of Hyrule and the mysterious islands floating in the vast skies above. Can you harness the power of Link's new abilities to fight back against the malevolent forces that threaten the kingdom?
Top Comments
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!
407 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
The only question I have is, why even bother posting in a thread for a pre-order deal for a game you think is trash anyway and have no intention of buying?
2. This is the game, not the special edition of the console, so it has nothing to do with the game per se. If you want the game physically, this is a good deal.
I'm betting we are getting a special edition TOTK OLED. If I can order one before they inevitably sell out, I'll probably take that opportunity to upgrade to the OLED and sell my current 2nd gen Switch. Then again, Nintendo projected very high unit sales for the Switch console this year, so hopefully they've been making enough TOTK OLEDs to satisfy demand, and they won't immediately sell out everywhere.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Pirating is not stealing. If I take $5 out of your wallet, that is stealing. A person pirating who doesn't intend to buy isn't stealing possible revenue from the developer or anyone. Lost earnings is a BS term made up by companies. No one has to recoup lost earnings because they were never realized. Its complete BS. How can you recover money you never had? Companies cant even quantify the amount of the product pirated so how would they be able to quantify lost earnings on pirating? THEY CANT. No one is losing money because no one made money. Is it possible that the company is reducing their max sales by pirating.
At the end of the day its not money, your money, its not anyones money being taken. Pirates are playing the games that you and I love, and maybe a couple buy the game after pirating, maybe a couple dont. Who cares, the video game industry is a behemoth and isnt stopping anytime soon, and life will go on.
Again, youre assuming everything from your own POV. I can have a laptop from 2005 that cost $50 and pirate all the content I want. Does that mean I can afford it? Not implicitly. If I never intend to buy a game but pirate it, its not stealing the $60 or $70 that it costs for the game. The game company isnt "losing" money in any way, as they never received that money for that product. So there is not theft of money.
If my understanding of "basic economics" is so incorrect, then educate me, im waiting because you attack me for saying a bunch of nothing but you go on to do the same thing
At the end of the day its not money, your money, its not anyones money being taken. Pirates are playing the games that you and I love, and maybe a couple buy the game after pirating, maybe a couple dont. Who cares, the video game industry is a behemoth and isnt stopping anytime soon, and life will go on.
But I agree with you on two points at least:
* Piracy isn't stealing. Stealing means you deprive someone of ownership of something. Piracy is actually a form of copyright infringement (still a crime and still wrong, but not theft).
* Video game publishers are absolutely overstating the effect of piracy on sales. There's *some* effect, sure, but they often use it as a scapegoat when in reality a game just flops.
Hands down
And I've been gaming since NES in 1989
And have owned N64, game boy, wii, switch PS, PS2, Dreamcast, PS3, PS4, Xbox , Xbox 360, Xbox one, Xbox one X. And many gaming PCs and graphics cards throughout the years.
But I agree with you on two points at least:
* Piracy isn't stealing. Stealing means you deprive someone of ownership of something. Piracy is actually a form of copyright infringement (still a crime and still wrong, but not theft).
* Video game publishers are absolutely overstating the effect of piracy on sales. There's *some* effect, sure, but they often use it as a scapegoat when in reality a game just flops.
In the days before the Internet, a person goes into Circuit City, EB, or Babbages, grabs a disk and tucks into his/her pants and strolls out without paying.
Nowadays, a person enters a pirating website and then downloads a game without paying.
Are those two things not fundamentally the same? In both cases, the person stealing/infringing/whatever the next buzzword is did not properly compensate the dev for their work.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
In the days before the Internet, a person goes into Circuit City, EB, or Babbages, grabs a disk and tucks into his/her pants and strolls out without paying.
Nowadays, a person enters a pirating website and then downloads a game without paying.
Are those two things not fundamentally the same? The person did not properly compensate the dev for their work.
From a legal perspective at least, they're different. Theft is depriving someone else of property. There's separate laws for copyright infringement since it's akin to illegally copying someone's work, not stealing it from a store (the difference is basically if you go into a bookstore and steal a book, versus go into a bookstore and take a picture of all the book's pages). Courts have explicitly rejected categorizing copyright infringement as "theft."
From a moral perspective though, I'd agree they're fundamentally the same. Certainly not all folks who steal/pirate works would have bought it otherwise. But some unknown percentage would, and the creator of the work ultimately loses out either way.
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!