You always have with Nintendo products. They have always had very aggressive licensing practices. In the early days they were more flexing them on developers, but it does not surprise me that in the wake of everyone telling them that modding and emulators can be explicitly legal that they would turn that particularly litigious aspect of their family friendly brand on the customers.
Always has been unless you count modding to remove this kind of shitty DRM.
Nintendo was the company to popularize DRM in home consoles with the US release of the NES. The Famicom had no DRM even though it was identical hardware otherwise (well, that, the RF modulator, and the PCB layout).
Yeah, definitely gonna stop those pirates who soft/hardmod their systems and never connect to the Internet/run updates in order to dump their games or play pirated copies or whatever they wanna do! That’ll stop them!
/s
Edit:
This seems to be more about their online account services and their updated privacy policy than anything else, but I still think my point stands, just not for this article.
The Switch 1 was able to run homebrew due to a hardware exploit in the CPU which allowed injection of arbitrary code. The interesting thing about that vulnerability being that since it was a hardware vulnerability, it couldn’t be patched out even after it was discovered.
Following that incident, I’m sure Nintendo has been working especially hard to ensure there are no similar vulnerabilities existing on the Switch 2.
That said, console hackers are an amazingly creative and talented bunch, so I wouldn’t be surprised by anything.
Hard to say. Consoles have certainly gotten more sercure and people finding vulnerabilities are far less likely to just give them out for free these days
But there is incentive to hack any console and nintendo has historically attracted the biggest dorks. Additionally they also seem to historically make pretty huge blunders, though the switch exploit was nvidias fault tbf
This accusation and evidence is so flimsy and immaterial. These don’t look like ai generated images. They don’t have closed composition, they are off center, and the text looks good. They look like distant lod 3d models or maybe some concept art.
yeah i edited the headline because even that was kinda clickbaity for what essentially amounts to Nintendo saying “no”. But at least good to know Nintendo isn’t buying into the AI hypetrain?
Nah, people are reaching on this one. There’s a lot of reasons to be mad at Nintendo. Cartoony proportions being a low key hint at GenAI is not one of them
I don’t know if you and I looked at the same images. Other than the text, all of the images have a lot of hallmarks of AI. The car is asymmetrical in almost every aspect, the bridge has a lot of random artifacts where support cables would be, the skyscrapers are just nonsensical all over the place. To me, they look like a ton of AI slop. They might just be placeholder art, but still shitty to use AI generated images
I just looked at the images in the article and I agree. I would hope they were placeholder, but that bridge especially has so many weird artifacts it almost looks like they used an older model to generate it
I’m getting ready for work, so only have time to do one image, but this is pretty clearly AI generated. The other image is not quite as egregious, but if you take more than a passing glance at the car in the billboard ad, it is pretty obviously AI as well.
That is probably why they are all differnt sizes and the flag part is different (or non existent) in each one.
The images might be based off in game assets, but if those are not AI then the artist certainly has a style that mimics AI art. I don’t think that is the case, though
none of these are particularly strong indicators that the art is ai… they feel more like stylistic choices. nintendo just like, uses a cartoonish & unrealistic styling?? i could 100% see this being generated or drawn. that’s like, the point of generative image tech…
regardless, why do you care? we’re sitting here debating whether or not the art is generated ffs; it is clearly good enough to pass as human art regardless of your subjective opinions
are you guys scared the spoopy ai is gonna jump out and get you or something?? i like, seriously don’t get the hysterics here beyond weird moral posturing.
AI art looks terrible, is almost always trained on stolen art, and is typically environmentally unsound. There are genuinely good uses for AI, art is not one of them.
We are talking about this specifically because there is reason enough to doubt Nintendo saying they didn’t use it. Nintendo may have used their own assets to train any alleged AI, buy them shutting down the conversation means we will never know.
Yes, video games in general have stopped caring about interiors because they require “too much thought” on the part of the lazy/incompetent developers.
smaller studios dont have money or interest to pay game news companies to write favourable articles about them. So clearly the industry must be dead if bigger ones are going down
I couldn’t get through much of it either, but not because of the weird stuff, I like weird, the gameplay is just too… involved? Stressful? Exhausting? Like I’m ok with challenging games sometimes, but needing to spend a ton of time slowly trekking across fields and mountains while manually trying to keep your footing, managing a bunch of consumables, and occasionally needing to play walk through the ghost minefield with your baby detector while dealing with the rest of that is just not something I could keep up for as long as the game was going to go.
For me by the time the game actually starts I’m bored and want to play something else.
Then i can’t remember how to play so i start over, and the cycle repeats.
It is, at its core, an exploration and infrastructure building game. A lot of the gameplay is “take X to Y” and the infrastructure you build helps you do it and determines how hard your task is gonna be. Combat is not plentiful, but it is there as an extra obstacle to overcome. If you dont find this core mechanic engaging enough, it probably isnt a game you would enjoy.
The story was so absolutely absurd in the first few hours. It lost me when they introduced Die Hard Man and a few other plot elements. There’s no way I could have ever finished it, and I love the convoluted mess of Metal Gear lore.
I simply cannot bring myself to care that giant corporations won’t make as much money as they used to by doing a thing I already don’t really like. If this is what the industry’s death entails, why should anyone grieve?
eurogamer.net
Najnowsze