One million people playing at 1080p and 60fps
Nah, some do be playing at 1440/2160p
Damn I heard you can inject ray tracing and even “mod” the game.
Tears of Nintendo
May Nintendo should build consoles which are capable of running there games in playable fps.
So… Exactly what they did then?
I’m really curious about this case’s outcome.
On one hand yuzu shouldn’t be illagel, on the other hand, their patreon income surged when tears of the kingdom came out, and maybe that is enough to say that they enable pirates and thus should cease all operations.
I’m rooting for yuzu. Have they said anything at all yet? Btw if you want yuzu I think now is the time to download it while it exists (in case nintendo moves forward / wins, or yuzu devs are intimidated to take it down)
Don’t forget about my homie Ryujinx! Better performance in same games, too!
patreon income surged when tears of the kingdom came out, and maybe that is enough to say that they enable pirates and thus should cease all operations.
Problem is, what part of that is Yuzu’s fault? They themselves stressed not to go down the piracy route.
I own a switch, I bought the game, Game runs like shit, Instead of returning it, I play it on yuzu
I’m sure if they had their way anyone who backwards engineers a system like polymega or analogue would be next on their hit list.
I actually paid someone to rip my WiiU BotW for me years ago because I like being legit legit, but most people either feel like its morally 100% fine to download a copy if they bought one, or don’t even know that its technically not legal.
Ripping your own ROMs tends to put your system at risk of bricking or being banned from online play. Its just not a desirable thing to do, so fans who care enough about the game to see it run at q higher quality or with lovingly crafted mods are very likely the ones who already purchased the game and are downloading a new copy.
I would love to see Yuzu run a poll to see how many people already purchased the game. Even if its anecdotal, maybe it would prove a point that people are crying out for more content and will go to illegal means to get it
but most people either feel like its morally 100% fine to download a copy if they bought one, or don’t even know that its technically not legal.
Morally speaking, why would backing up your own copy make a difference, assuming you bought a copy in either case?
Morally I would say it depends on how much the legal aspect is valued. Legally (where applicable) you’re supposed to use your own copy of the software to make the rom you use, ensuring you own both the hardware and the game.
Laws should be heavily influenced by what is morally right and wrong, but morality as a concept is not influenced by laws. An individual’s or culture’s sense of morality might be, but if laws are derived from morals then that’s fine.
Questions of morality will have different answers when the context changes, so it may be morally unacceptable in one society to do something and morally acceptable to do the same thing in another. Laws have an influence on morality only insofar as laws have an impact on the context in which actions take place. This would not be because the law prohibits those actions.
Some examples:
- If a law is passed outlawing sharing nonconsensual AI-generated pornography, it should be because it was agreed that doing so is morally wrong. The law being passed doesn’t make it suddenly morally wrong.
- If a law were passed making some completely innocuous action illegal, and frequently punished - say, hand-painting Nintendo or Disney characters on an interior wall in your own house - then posting publicly on someone’s Facebook wall about loving their Princess Peach X Princess Elsa mural would be morally wrong, even though it would have been fine to do that before the law was passed.
The context that we have is that it is illegal (in the US) to:
- distribute copyrighted materials
- download copyrighted materials
- bypass DRM even when making a backup, except for specific purposes. With video games, unless you are circumventing DRM because the auth servers were taken down (inapplicable for the Switch) or solely because you have a physical disability and are patching the game to support other input options (standard keyboard and mouse specifically excluded), then it is still illegal.
So in either case you’d be doing something illegal. But morally, in a situation where you’ve purchased the game and are platform-shifting to an unsupported platform (like the “time-shifting” defense used with VHS recordings, DVRs, etc.), then the laws aren’t really relevant. The laws certainly don’t exist because there’s societal agreement that this type of platform shifting is morally wrong.
The reason the person I replied to had to pay someone to rip his own game for him is because Nintendo makes it difficult to do so. Even if the law were different and allowed those actions, I don’t understand why anyone would think that it makes sense that a corporation can morally obligate their customers (who want to consume their product in a particular way) to perform work with no value add when the customers could get what they want by doing something much easier.
Unless you’re actually causing harm (directly or indirectly) to someone by your actions in one instance but not the other, I don’t see how one option would be morally acceptable and the other morally wrong.
If the game were supported on the other platform, then the context - and potentially the outcome - changes. If Nintendo invested a decent amount of money porting BotW to Android phones and it cost them a decent amount of money to do so, then would it be morally wrong to not support them and to emulate it instead? Would there be an ethical obligation to support them? What if the Android port was terrible - would it be acceptable to buy it, then use the emulated version anyway - and if you’d bought the Android version and were emulating it on Android, would there still be a moral or ethical obligation to purchase the same cart you were emulating? What if Nintendo just licensed or repackaged Yuzu and didn’t actually make any changes to the game, so their investment was minimal?
It’s a different situation entirely when determining whether it’s morally wrong to host a site with freely downloadable ROMs. The site could be used by people who did not purchase those games, causing lost revenue to their creators.
Both of those situations have grey areas and I can see why someone would consider them immoral. I have opinions on them, of course, but there’s a lot more nuance there; I can easily see why someone would feel differently.
With this specific situation I don’t understand - and am trying to understand - how someone could come to different conclusions for the morality of the two actions. Are they inferring that you support the site hosting the content when you download it? (If you use an adblocker and don’t financially support them, would it then be fine?) Are they assuming torrenting, where you would have to either leech (which they would consider immoral) or seed, and thus distribute, as well? Or is there some other factor that I’m not thinking of?
make it 1.000.001 cause my god, I am never buying a switch game ever
Maybe people don’t want to pay premium prices for games on 8 year old underpowered hardware.
This goes to show that people want to play Nintendo’s games but don’t want to get a switch, Nintendo has a big opportunity in untapped market potential for PC gamers
They’d never open up to the PC market. Their whole business is based on selling their propreitary hardware.
Also, that would open the floodgates for modding. Nintendo hates modding.
I still think the amount of money they’d generate from expanding their sales platforms would outweigh that philosophy, but I’d like to see the numbers as well
But their switch is crap. Breaks constantly, is low power, the software is painful (IMO), games are expensive, and save game backup is a subscription.
My experience:
- never breaks
- low power - irrelevant for the games we get for it
- software is fine
- save game backup - I don’t need it
Here’s where I’m disappointed:
- parental controls - need to use an app for most features, and they’re still disappointing; I just want what the Steam Deck has
- games are expensive - I’d spend far more if games were cheaper; net result is I use my Steam Deck and PC far more, the Switch is just for exclusives
But that’s about it. If they sold games for PC, they’d get more of my money, especially if I could swap between PC and Switch. I spend far more on games for my Steam Deck than for my Switch (I get like 2-3 Switch games, and like 20+ Steam games per year).
That’s fair. It is popular for a reason, even if I don’t see it myself.
Nintendo is not ready for the Mario cast naked mods. They most likely never will. I’m surprised there is even any Nintendo IP hentai floating around at all, really.
Can’t say I blame them for that, really.
I love it when companies think the (often invented) number of pirated copies has any meaningful correlation to lost revenue.
My girlfriend and I have one Nintendo Switch. We share it. But the only modern Nintendo games I play are the Legend of Zelda series. Since Breath of the Wild, when a new one came out, we’d buy it right away, and then I’d end up placing a copy on my PC to play so we could play together.
If Nintendo thinks I’m gonna buy a game twice just to play at the same time as my partner, when we only have the one console, think again. If Nintendo thinks someone who only likes one game is gonna buy a whole second console, they’re out of their minds.
What I do own is a Steam Deck, because Steam is a platform first and I can play my games on my fancy PC at home and on multiple devices. My Steam Deck can even play non-steam games great too!
The second Nintendo makes a PC store that let’s me play their games on my other hardware, I’ll start buying that second copy of all our games solely for the convenience of it. Until then they can suck an egg.
Yup, if Nintendo sold their games for PC, I’d probably buy some games twice. The Switch is really good for couch MP, so I’ll still buy Mario Kart, Mario Party, etc for the Switch. It’s okay for SP games, but I honestly prefer my Steam Deck, so I almost never buy third party titles for Switch.
I spend $100-150/year on Nintendo stuff, and I spend well more than that on Steam. If Nintendo first party games worked on PC, I’d probably double the amount I buy from Nintendo.
Sorry, a game that’s been out for years shouldn’t be $60. Start discounting these older games like they used to do.
Did Nintendo ever really discount their games?
They run discounts all the time. So do places like Target. This myth of Nintendo never lowering prices of games is insane.
They don’t reduce the retail price, but they do go on sales periodically, but rarely more than 30% or so. Link’s Awakening (2019) and Breath of the Wild (2017) still retail for $60. A good sale might bring it down to $40 (probably more like $50), and used on eBay go for $35-45.
For PC games of similar age and initial launch price, you’d probably spend like $10-20. Yes, you can technically get a discount, but it’s not going to be that much.
To my understanding, Nintendo actively opposed doing so.
But when Nintendo was “competing” with Sega/Sony, brick and mortar stores had a LOT more power. EBGames/Gamestop could basically do whatever they wanted because moving the Nintendo shelves to be behind the Sony shelves would lead to noticeable sales changes. So it was a lot more common for Toys R Us to run their own sales to move merchandise.
But in the past twenty years or so, Nintendo have actively shitlisted anyone who puts a discount on their games. Amazon famously got shitlisted at least three or four times which led to a lot of weirdness in terms of what “editions” of a given game was available for purchase.
All my physical Switch games (which is most of them) I got used at GameStop because they were all about 50-70% cheaper than buying new or through Nintendo’s store. Even TOTK which I got maybe 3 months or so after release was only $35 used. Games that were even older were mostly $10-20.
And gamestop paid the original buyer of that something like 5 dollars so they could sell it back to you at 7x the price.
Utilizing stores like gamestop can be beneficial to a consumer but the entire business model is built on exploiting children and idiots.
So it was a lot more common for Toys R Us to run their own sales to move merchandise
Ah, I remember that. I used to buy most of my GBA and Sega Gamegear games at Toys R Us, and most games went for $20 or less, and I think I got some deals around $5-10 for older games. This was a long time ago, so I don’t recall specifics, but I do remember Toys R Us being the place to go for video games.
Aww. Hope it drives them to bankruptcy.
If I was never planning on buying your game, does that mean you lost money?
Not enough TBH.
Yeah I pirated it, played it for 5 hours. I didn’t and don’t have any intention of buying a nintendo game ever, even if I couldn’t pirate it. They are almost never worth the asking price. Most have the quality of a 40 usd steam indie game, some even of a 20 usd one. I know that this doesn’t have anything to do with the creative departments, but nintendo can go fuck itself. Also, a friend of mine whose a fan of Nintendo pirated it even before it came out, but he played it in the switch lol.
Should have made it cheaper…
