the lawsuit accuses Keighin of streaming leaked Switch games, including this month’s Mario & Luigi: Brothership, ahead of release using emulation software as many as 50 times in the last two years. Nintendo is seeking $150,000 in damages for each instance of alleged copyright infringement.
Hilarious that the screenshot Kotaku use in the article is his social media post with his recommendations of what sites to download the games from.
Kinda the reason i dont like kotaku tbh. They do such things very often and it always feel like they are taunting or flexing and it comes over as really douchy to me
This idiot brought this on himself AND is probably at least partially responsible for the recent crackdown on Switch emulation by Nintendo. I won’t shed a tear for him.
Not to defend leakers even a bit and Nintendo has every right to go after them legally. However, the emulation crackdown is just Nintendo flexing their legal team on small devs who’ve done everything they can to discourage leaks from spreading within their limited reach. It’s 100% on Nintendo and they themselves are acting in a legal gray zone to bully 3rd parties into giving up. If any of the emulation teams had the resources to simply deal with big N, the situation would probably look a little different.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, yes leakers are in the wrong but no, they didn’t kill emulation with their actions even when it provoked Nintendo.
The first switch emulator that was taken down (I think yuzu), was justified by Nintendo as copyright infringement because people (including moderators) were sharing copyrighted material openly on their public discord. BIOS files, links to games, and early leaks.
The more recent one (Ryujinx I think) was the one that did things right, so Nintendo didn’t have that copyright leg to stand on. So instead (according to the maintainer of the Mac fork) they sent goons to the house of the head dev in Brazil… to “talk” him into taking it down.
I read an article about a leather artist who recycled secondhand Gucci (I think? It was a big name fashion brand is all I recall) bags into wallets and things like that, and despite everything being clearly labeled to make sure nobody could mistake it for an official product, they had a similar experience. I wish I could find the article again, because I don’t remember what came of it and my search skills are failing me.
In 1999, Nintendo got a woman in Japan arrested over - and get this - sharing erotic fan art. I’ve read they also might’ve sent private detectives to stalk after her before the arrest, but couldn’t find anything quickly. Anyway it sparked a big shit storm and a debate about what copyright holders are allowed to do, legally and morally.
I go on psplus and ps store just about daily and I had never heard of this game before. What kind of shit marketing is going on here? Looks like a basic game, nothing special, and it looks like it uses a card system which I despise.
My first reaction to Concord’s record-breaking failure was sympathy for all the staff who had worked on and polished the game for years. All that dedication, passion, and effort, wasted.
Then, I found out the game had been live service, and my reaction could be simplified to one word: GOOD.
The American mainstream news media has been obsessed with pushing/covering politics for the last 6 or 7 months, and both political parties are giving the media massive stockpiles of ammo for ragebait-fuelled ad revenue. Why would they ever cover video games, something mainstream media outlets have historically blamed some of the worst tradgedies in American history on, when it will neither give them free ad revenue, nor continue to villanize video games?
WWIII: Special Military Operation still going on. WWIII: Religious Extremism expansion pack just dropped. COVID: 2: Electric Boogaloo in some areas. Election year in like 4+ major countries. Multiple major entertainment failures across the board in multiple entertainment sectors. And major scandals to boot, most notably a massive media icon’s fall from grace via nice and friendly things like coercion, conspiracy to murder, human trafficking, etc.
Gee Kotaku idk. You would think a Japanese corporation’s failure and loss of revenue would be more important to American media outlets during an election year. Crazy how that managed to slip through the cracks.
I think it’s a story when it’s perhaps the largest flop in the medium, much like John Carter. It’s somehow worth writing five articles about the Joker sequel flopping.
John Carter didn’t get that much attention either, and what it did was mostly about the leadership changes in Disney tanking the advertising and not about the movie itself.
As a fan of the books, the movie was pretty bad. The only good parts I can recall were the CG, and the actors who played Tars Tarkus and Kantos Kan. Everyone else in the film was mid to bad.
Do you think more people care about the average video game story or the average story about the theater? Live performances, not movies. Theater, Dance, and Visual Arts all get their own sections in the NYTimes, for instance, but video games are demonstrably bigger and don’t get the same attention. There’s rarely even a mention of the likes of Call of Duty in mainstream media when they do exceptionally well, let alone exceptionally poorly, and that’s really the crux of the article.
That has more to do with New York having a thriving theater scene and a NY newpaper promoting a local thing that is popular with its readership and the companies that pay for advertising. It is something that sets NY apart from a lot of other locations, even if theater is pretty common in most areas.
Kind of a chicken and egg when it comes to games, since readers won’t be expecting games news in mainstream sources they don’t dedicate resources to writing the articles. That makes business sense because most people who are looking for game news already have a number of web sites to choose from.
I agree that theater is something that New York has in abundance over most areas, but are there not movie focused sites better delivering those articles on movies as well? Is it not worth covering something at all just because it’s at other news sources? If it wasn’t, any news outlet would only print exclusives. And this extends beyond the Times, as the article points out; that’s just the outlet I personally have a subscription to, and their circulation extends far and wide regardless.
My point is mostky about people’s expectations and that people who want news on games probably aren’t interested in gaming articles from papers/major news sites and companies in general aren’t looking to advertise on gaming articles in the same way that makers of fashion would want to advertise in the theater section.
I really like this post btw, I never really thought about how sparse reporting on games is outside of dedicated sites.
Like I said though, they do have some really great articles in gaming, just not with their own header, so they’re harder to find. And they do know what isn’t covered by other outlets, because they tend to do profile pieces rather than news coverage. But if Joker’s sequel is worth writing five articles about, surely the largest failure we’ve seen in games is worth one, you’d think.
An article about Joker 2 has the novelty factor of bombing as a sequel to Joker, which was a massive hit. They will got a lot more views on any one of those five Joker 2 articles than they will from multiple articles about a game nobody heard about.
More views = more money. It doesn’t matter whether something is more ‘worthy’ or not.
For the New York Times, that’s not really their incentive system compared against their subscription model. Still, it’s a disparaging difference between how they treat both industries. Losing hundreds of millions of dollars would be news in any industry.
Also, generally speaking, people interested in news about games read and seek out gaming sources that cover gaming info. Like kotaku.
Gaming is popular enough that there are several dedicated news and information sites to choose from. The “news” is for stuff of general interest. They could cover some gaming news, but for the most part people who want gaming news get it from more dedicated sources.
I do find it interesting though that the finals is another game that basically has not been advertised to anyone, and that has a very strong but small community. So not advertising your game is not automatically a death sentence although it probably doesn’t help.
They story should have been how a $200m investment into a live service game failed. An investor who knows jack shit about games reads that and now thinks live service games are a risky invetment strategy.
I’ve seen analysis that said Catwoman may have been more about royalties in the streaming era rather than solely tax write-offs, but this article does point out “this year” specifically. The lower bound for how much Concord lost is in line with the highest recorded box office loss of John Carter, according to the article. Previous Kotaku reporting confirms from multiple sources that Concord lost at least $200M, but did not fully corroborate the $400M figure that Colin Moriarty reported.
kotaku.com
Gorące