Emulation isn't the devil, Nintendo...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 чер 2024
- What the title says. I've been restless about the future of my channel since Nintendo made massive moves against the emulation scene, believing it to be entirely for freeloaders and cheapskates when there are legitimate uses for it... like my reviews. This was something personal I had to get off my chest as soon as possible. Thank you for bearing with me.
- Ігри
The Wii U also has this issue. Many Wii U's are failing due to issues with the NAND inside it going corrupt leading to many of them being bricked.
If Nintendo has a problem with me emulating. Please take away my 100+ switch collection that probably would be 200 if I didn’t sell some of the games
They'd rather stop making games if there is no money in it at that point, and sell crappy merch and hold on the rights to prevent other companies from doing so. Who wont make games either because why spend all that time when its starts on day 1?
You cant "preserve" what isnt even released yet, and they saw that. Wait for next gen then swoop in. Im swimming in my psp library, and sony dont look twice... they would have if i was never paying for a single game back in 2006. Circumventing day 1 sales is past "the line"
I lost a purchased copy of MH3U and Oracle of Seasons along with four swords anniversary because my 3DS died after if fell 5 inches out of my pocket and Nintendo's stupid policy of not being able to have the same account on several consoles prevented me from ever getting the games back without spending more money or not getting them back at all in the case of FSA, so I put on the tricorn and never looked back. Of course I also grab anything I can't really buy anymore or if I have issues with the ethics of the developer/publisher but 95-98% of the time I buy games with my hard earned money.
What a coincidence! My DSi bit the dust while I was traveling to Orlando once. It was crushed under all the other luggage piled on it, costing me Four Swords too.
Yeah, it's pretty messed up all around.
I always stand by my personal policy that if a product, be it a game, TV show or movie is commercially available, as in I can play the makers of it for a copy, then I will do that.
However, if something isn't commercially available, as in I can only get it either second hand or piracy... Well, it depends on the price. If the price for second hand is reasonable, I'll go second hand. But if it's not (like the insane prices for the old Pokémon games on eBay), well...
Yar har, fiddle-dee-dee.
This is the most sane stance to take on this. You want to support developers so they can keep making games but it's not reasonable to pay $1 000 or whatever second hand for an NES and some obscure game from your childhood. In the same way it wouldn't be reasonable to pay $50 for the OG Super Mario Bros. if Nintendo decided to sell it for that price on the eShop.
I think that, unless you want a physical copy of a game, there is no reason to buy second hand since it contributes nothing to the developers. But if it's just $20 then you might as well.
Good point about anti-circumvention laws hurting paying customers more than the actual pirates, especially because criminals don't care about laws to begin with. Also, it's stupid to have legal protections on encryption to begin with because those encryption algorithms aren't made to last forever and usually don't last long at all before a revision or a completely new one takes it place.
My pipe dream is to revive the Code Name STEAM pvp community. That game's multiplayer slaps and its metagame never really got explored. Now local wireless is the only way to play against someone, since Pretendo doesn't support it and it's probably not high on their priority list.
Well done! A grandfather clause is a great solve.
I think copyright law needs to be relaxed. I don't think it's reasonable for a company to still hold the exclusive rights to a game created over 20 years ago. The original Super Mario Bros., for instance, should be in the public domain. The purpose of copyright is to protect a person's right to monetize their creation and 10-20 years would be plenty to do that. Super Mario Bros. has sold almost 60 million copies. I think that's a good run and that everyone at this point has the right to play that game in any way they like for free. It's an important part of history that should be available to all at this point. The same goes for many other games. The 3DS is already approaching this point as well.
A shorter period of copyright would also likely lead to more new creations since new creations would be copyrighted. If Nintendo could no longer rely on profits from selling old Super Mario and Zelda titles they would be incentivized to make more new titles in these franchises. And whatever money they lose from not selling these old games would be made up through not spending copious amounts on lawyers to screw over their core fans ;)
An update requiring goods to be SOLD for the copyright to be valid is a solid solution too. What's the point of holding a copyright if you aren't going to do anything with it for 30 years? Case in point the Wizardry series which , while untangled now, was a nightmare for Digital Eclipse to get the rights to. Nobody cared about you sharing a copy of Wizardry since 2001 when Sir Tech went belly up, might as well make it legally formal while they're at it.
@@kyokusagani8869 That's a good idea. If you're not profiting from your intellectual property then why should your right to profit be protected.
Well done Patrick!
bowser need to be fired fr
Care for a box of tissues?
Why yes, that'll come in handy if I ever catch a cold !
4:13 I give It 2-3 years.
My rule has always been anything before 2009 If It's not sold digitally on Steam/GOG.
Golly gee Patrick, it's true... THIS IS ALL TRUE!!! PAAAAAAAAAAAATRICK!!!
-Anonymous (definitely don't already know me)
The Nintendo ninjas are going to come after all of us