Re: An Nvidious flaw
I feel that, after a certain amount of time on the market, no anti-piracy measure is of any use. It's there to protect first-day, really, isn't it?
The Wii didn't really suffer from pirateable games, did it? And some devices there was probably no copy protection at all and yet they survived just as well - everything from the NES/Gameboy, I should imagine.
Though I get why they have to TRY to put it on, they know just as well as we do that it's ultimately just a hindrance. So they have to look like they're trying, limit the obvious, make it clear that there are "hacked" and "unhacked" devices and that it's not easy for one to change from one to the other (granny isn't going to do it, is she?). At that point, the people who WANT a hacked device - you're not really going to stop them, are you? They'll happily unsolder every ROM and replace it with a custom one if they want, and then sell them to others who want that kind of device.
I can't imagine it hits their sales that much - such people would rather spend £200 on the hack than £50 on a game anyway.
I think, like Steam, Nintendo get the balance right. I can't ever remember being hindered by their copy protection or usage polices (e.g. "you can use your account on one machine at a time", etc.). They put in enough that I'd think "Bah, not worth messing with", even as a tinkerer, but not enough that I'm swearing at the machine to just play my game.
A lot of other places get it a lot more wrong.