They’re much more likely to spend time on the easy wins than on anything that’ll take time and money to fight in court. Since these folks aren’t redistributing any of Nintendo’s copyrighted content, it’s not as simple of a takedown as an emulator that includes private keys.
Github isn’t taking Nintendo to court over one of their users projects. They just comply with the takedown request and remove it. The user/dev isn’t going to fight Nintendo to bring it back either.
Honestly, it think thats a really good idea. Proprietary consoles are a relict and its great if they go away and get replaced by open platforms like the steamdeck and steam machines (not necessarily affiliated with valve though).
Fully agree. I would even outlaw the walled garden concept completely. I would necessitate interconnecting APIs for everything. So that I can call apples app store over their api from any machine for example.
If someone comes up with an example that overburdens a company, they need to allow others to make such tools for free.
Also, i would outlaw any fee on things that cant be explained logically. Like apple tax for example.
Just in case you are still curious, and I don’t see any actual answers here. The download provided is all the code for the game engine and everything else that would be going on in the background of the game. Anything that could be copyrighted by Nintendo (things like character and object models, textures, music, and environments) need to come from a totally legit dump from an official Nintendo cartridge and definitely not any ol’ .rom file you can download online
Yeah except most consumers no longer care about goodwill when buying new products so they’ve just figured out that it doesn’t matter what they do. So if a company has goodwill at this point, it might as well just be unspent money.
Ah, I misunderstood and see what you're referring to now. It looks like the way YouTube auto-truncates URLs caused the link to get mashed into the next line of text on the preview Lemmy fetched. As others mention, that's more of a Lemmy bug than anything.
I’m not a huge fan of game reviews but I love Mandalore’s yearly Halloween reviews. Games like Ring, Mystery of the Droods, Anonymous Agony, and Limbo of the Lost go from trash tier to the funniest things ever with his commentary
After having watched an older video and some more recent ones, I definitely prefer his more recent, more structured ones. But maybe I just had bad luck with the old one being the Return of the King one.
Felt way too unstructured for my taste. But it was cool that he got Sean Astin for part the video. :D
I’ve not watched either, but this is probably the relevant extract from the wall of text that the UK gov put up.
If consumers are led to believe that a game will remain playable indefinitely for certain systems, despite the end of physical support, the CPRs may require that the game remains technically feasible (for example, available offline) to play under those circumstances.
I’m currently at work, so disclaimer: the following is an AI-generated summary.
The UK government has responded to the petition to stop game publishers from destroying players’ access to purchased games, but the response is complex and not entirely straightforward.
The government’s response suggests there may be some legal avenues to pursue, particularly around the requirement for clear information to be provided to consumers about the longevity of online games.
The key issue seems to be that most online games do not clearly disclose when their service will be shut down, depriving consumers of information needed to make an informed purchase decision.
Pursuing this angle through consumer protection regulations like the CPRs may be more promising than directly trying to prevent game shutdowns, which the government response suggests is not clearly prohibited.
However, there are many open questions about the specifics of how to report and pursue potential violations, including around time limits, penalties, and differences between UK and Scottish law.
The creator of the video acknowledges this is a complex legal maze, but believes there is potential to do “a lot of damage” to the industry if the right approach can be identified.
Gathering more signatures on the UK petition may help, but the creator is skeptical this alone will lead to legislative change.
Overall, the response provides some promising leads, but significant work is still needed to determine the best path forward and how to effectively leverage the apparent legal violations.
The creator expresses frustration at having to essentially act as “self-checkout law enforcement” to get the government to enforce existing consumer protection laws.
Despite the challenges, the creator remains determined to find a way to hold game publishers accountable and prevent the destruction of purchased games.
Basically, there probably easily legal case to answer especially for supposedly single player games that have online components, but it would be up to individuals to actually go about suing the game companies, the government isn’t going to get involved.
I sent it at the time, petition was badly done, it really should have just focused on keeping software products in general around after support is dropped by the creating company. This isn’t just an issue that affects video games, and get and by using video games in the name it allows the government to kind of just dismiss it.
youtube.com
Gorące