Yeah exactly, he left because he finished the job he was there to do. Now they are acting like this is some kind of move to placate their customers as if it wasn’t the plan all along.
I thought all of the IP was controlled by The Pokemon Company, which Nintendo owns a minority stake in. Shouldn’t it be the Pokemon Company who is filing the DMCA takedown and taking legal action?
Look Epic, those are very nice presents but as I told you many times already, I am happily married to Steam and I plan to keep it that way. Please respect my decision and stop sending me gifts, it´s getting awkward and honestly you´re making an ass of yourself.
Well, a bunch more talent just hit the job market with The Escapist melting down, too.
I encourage anyone that hasn’t yet to try any subscription-based journalism for a month just to see how different the writing is when it’s not beholden to advertising and SEO.
Their parent company fired some people, including the editor-in-chief, and he was so well liked the entire video team resigned and went with him. They’re now Second Wind. youtube.com/
Not every game has frame gen… not everybody wanna introduce lag to input. So 50% is 100% sketchy marketing. You can keep your 7 frames, Imma wait for 6090
Their whole gaming business model now is encouraging devs to stick features that have no hope of rendering quickly in order to sell this new frame generation rubbish.
There is a bigger barrier to them being able to take it away from you. But they absolutely can. Broadcast content like a movie or TV show illegally, and see what happens.
This is about the medium by which the license is provided, there is no doubt whatsoever that the license is the same. This has been proven repeatedly. The difference here is that the distributor can be legally forced to remove the content by the owner of the media. So, if for instance you order a physical disc and pay for it ahead of time and then the place you order from loses the right to distribute that disc, you absolutely won’t get it in the mail because they’re required to send it back to the owner.
You’d likely get a refund in that case but that’s because you didn’t get to actually enjoy that media at all. But buying a license to a show on Amazon or something is different only because it’s likely that they have pull the show after you paid for it and outside the return window. Meaning in theory you have enjoyed or consumed the media you paid for. So the license is legal.
What really needs to change imo isn’t the transparency. This discussion keeps being had repeatedly and people keep being outraged by it as if they have never heard that this can happen. Its been 20 some odd years of this and I would think it would be common knowledge by now.
What really needs to change is the terms by which the owner who licenses the content in the first place should either be required to provide a refund or equivalent on a different platform, or they should be the ones held liable for their terminology in the licensing agreement that would require that license to be null and void for people who have already purchased it.
But literally every single time I say this people get upset about it and nobody can explain why.
Broadcast content like a movie or TV show illegally, and see what happens.
Yeah, that’s because you own the property, not the intellectual property. This is copyright law, not an affront to your ownership. When you “buy” a movie digitally on Amazon, you’re only buying access to their copy of the movie. Amazon bought the right to distribute it to you. When that contract expires, they can’t distribute it to you anymore. That’s why it’s not ownership. When you buy a game on GOG, you download the installer, and they cannot take it away from you, no matter how hard they try; that’s their whole shtick.
But literally every single time I say this people get upset about it and nobody can explain why.
Someone has probably explained the above to you before.
On the basis of technicality, it will depend very wildly on the ToC of said intellectual property. As you said, GOG just distributes the installer and that is it, the IP holder can technically revoke your/GOG license if that is in the ToC somewhere.
Yeah, hence why I said that technically the license can be revoked. Enforcing that is another matter. Without going into the weeds, we need to rethink how to handle it. At minimum, we need to make sure that if the license is revoked not from breaking ToS, the Copyright/IP holder must refund the purchase too. The copyright/ip holder still has the right to their creation but the consumer is also protected via those refund. It is indeed not bulletproof but whether you like it or not, copyright/ip protection is needed to some extent.
Not trying to argue, but I don’t believe I can re-sell my copy of a game I “bought” on GOG, so in my view that’s not full ownership as most people understand it. If you’re a full, legal owner of some property, you can sell that property anywhere you like.
Until Bungie gives me back the content I already paid for, that company can rot in hell. I feel for the devs who point stuff out to leadership and tell them exactly what they need to do to fix their reputation, but the leadership saying “player’s still love us” means that piece of shit scumbag, Pete Parsons, can go get dry fucked by splintering balsa wood.
I won’t play the Legacy Collection, not even when it’s free. Fuck you, Bung-hole.
Oh well, maybe they should have made better games instead of looter shooter grind fests that were an obvious trend and not actually a fun fucking game play loop.
The troll was able to spoof the Nintendo.co.jp domain because Nintendo didn’t setup their DMARC settings correctly. They have it setup but with policy “none” instead of “reject”. What a bunch of dumb asses. Such a big company doesn’t even protect their domains against spoofing. Probably why they got hacked, they don’t invest enough in IT security. Though this is typical for Japanese corporations.
Claiming “multiple patent rights” without mentioning smells like kafkatrapping.
I think that Nintendo’s delayed reaction was to gauge how much money it could get from bullying Pocketpair to accept some unfavourable settlement outside the court; if too little the costs would be too high to bother, considering the risk, but now that Palworld sold a bazillion it’s more profitable to do so. It might actually backfire if Palworld decides to go through the whole thing, I don’t know how Japanese law works in this regard but if Nintendo loses this certainly won’t look good for them, and even if they win it might be a pyrrhic victory.
They don’t really need a chat though, do they? For their purpose of user-interfacing development and tracking, a forum would be much more useful when coupled with a code hosting system, no?
Can do bug reporting/tracking and development through the latter, while the former allows discoverable FAQ, dev-to-user and user-to-user support. With chat, the last point is just about impossible plus it’s not discoverable.
Yeah CDPR doesn’t care about Linux support at all. They for years promised Linux support for their GOGGalaxy desktop client and then abruptly deleted the webpage that promised that feature. Their Linux support IME is some dodgy shell scripts that never work right.
CDPR has some interesting history. My understanding is that they got their start bootlegging games that couldn’t be got legally in their area, and transitioned to making games for their isolated market. GoG felt like a way to he true to their roots, distributing the old games used to bootleg legally.
Yeah GOG has an interesting legacy. For a long time it was the only place to get working games for abandoned platforms that didn’t require ages of tinkering. They’d give you a bundled copy of dosbox or some other emulator preconfigured to work with the particular game on Windows.
It’s moved so far from its roots that they’ve all but abandoned the acronym. A bit like how TLC used to stand for “The Learning Channel”
theverge.com
Ważne