When I get bored with the conversation/tired of arguing I will simply tersely agree with you and then stop responding. I’m too old for this stuff.
Yes, which is intentionally being stonewalled by manufacturers who enjoy being able to force their old models into obsolescence at their whim. There are only a handful of market players with essentially a stranglehold on the market, and they could EASILY coordinate on a set of standards that SoC developers need to conform to to be considered for product launches if we didn’t live in a corporate driven techno-dystopia.
Why do people not understand that piracy is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY irrelevant to the LEGALITY of emulation?
There is no “Oh, but Nintendo was losing money…”
My electric company loses money when I generate solar power. That doesn’t give them the legal right to come to my house and rip out my panels.
The established legal FACT is that emulation is LEGAL.
“But the pirates…”
No, shut up. Emulation is LEGAL. Making and distributing an emulator is LEGAL. And the best way to LOSE that legal right is to misunderstand that you have it and make the public think that there’s some legal gray area here. There isn’t.
You know what’s illegal? PIRACY. And Nintendo has every legal right to go after PIRATES. They DON’T have the legal right to stop development of system emulators. Stop with this nonsense justification, because there isn’t one. Nintendo is not legally right on ANY aspect of this.
Repeat after me:
CREATING AND DISTRIBUTING EMULATORS IS COMPLETELY LEGAL BY ESTABLISHED LAW AND LEGAL PRECEDENT AND NINTENDO ILLEGALLY EXTORTED SOMEONE INTO STOPPING A PROJECT.
https://www.google.com/search?q=samus+aran+nude&sclient=img&udm=2&safe=off
Maybe mark your link as NSFW?
This right here, folks? Is why the concept of “self-documenting code” is nonsense.
That is true, but until now we’ve mostly been able to enjoy the best of both without compromise or major obstacles, and even AAA games can offer quality, especially considering the value add of the modding community. We got all the benefit of a AAA title with customization and community at a fraction of the price. Sure, indies will still be there and delivering great quality no matter what, but more actively engaged big companies is still a net loss to PC gaming.
This is Sony’s decision. It is a material change to the product that was sold. It is not the same as a patch or a nerf. It has rendered the product unplayable. Yes, you can make the argument that it was listed on the page from the beginning that an account was required, but it is also the case that EULAs are actually not legally binding contracts. Sony has made a unilateral decision, and as a result it does not matter whether a person is finished with the game or not. This is a change to the actual contract, which was the purchase of a game to use in perpetuity for the length of time that it is available on steam. Sony has made this decision, customers don’t have to justify the reason that they don’t like the change. It is a change. They are counting on people letting it slide, because most of the time that is how businesses do business.
Also, you should really stop standing up for giant corporations. Sony doesn’t need your help. They have teams of lawyers whose job it is to argue with valve over whether they need to give refunds. They may also end up having to deal with class action lawsuits, and potential legal issues with 177 countries which may have completely different laws of consumer protection than the US. That is not your responsibility.
Besides, one of the pillars of capitalism is rational self-interest, and that goes both ways, not just in the business side. If you can get a refund for something because a company has made a bad decision about how they do their business, why do you care about whether it’s fair or not to the company? They sure don’t care about whether it’s fair to you. Are you a Sony lawyer? Are you the “be nice to big companies police”? Let Sony and Valve, and possibly the court system, worry about what their legal obligations are, and you worry about your personal decision of whether you are going to take advantage of your legal rights. Don’t start judging whether others should or shouldn’t do the same.
You are applying a standard to the game that applies to YOU. Other players who are currently playing a game do not care that you are finished playing the game. They are not. The game did not ship with a 3 month subscription plan. It shipped as a sold product. Your analogy is like an all-you-can-eat buffet where after twenty minutes they close it down and make everyone stop eating, and your argument is, “Well, I’M full. It’s fine.”
Biological generative intelligence