/v/ - Video Games

>>16644385

I only bought some of them on my 3DS, skipped the Wii U and got the NES and SNES Classic.

>>16644391

If you have a 3DS, why not jailbreak it and install a GBA emulator then? 3DSes are great for jailbreaking because they're portable.

>>16644385

Many of us no longer have the original hardware and games, and buying old games nowadays is too expensive.

>>16644399

Then use an emulator. Beats buying the same game several times. Have a spine.

>>16644372

if they make them free for good goyims who bought the year pass i wouldnt mind.

>>16644399

vita is a good and very cheap portable emulator.

>>16644394

That's illegal.

>>16644453

And he owns his software and hardware that he paid for.

>>16644453

Laws are influenced and decided by the same people selling you products.

While I would like to see the Gamecube games that had LAN support maybe get virtual lan servers I don't like the entirety of emulation being behind the premium paywall

Why don't Nintendo just sell virtual console games from previous systems on the Switch? People aren't paying for Nintendo Switch Online to play NES games and the Wii U had SNES, N64, GBA on it shortly after it came out. Loads of new Nintendo fans will want to play previous entries in Nintendo's franchises. They would make a shitload of money, they have no excuse.

>>16644453

>that's illegal

Who cares?

> paying for online.

you faggots are the paypigs that they have groomed for years now.

>>16644635

I think the issue is they know not everyone wants to pay for online, so they're greasing it for the people that would be playing offline.

Already have a hacked Wii and Snes Mini. I got games from nes, Snes, gb, gbc, gba, n64, gamecube and wii installed on them.

>>16644635

>paying for roms and Nintendos shit emulators again, or ever

>>16644453

Nevermind, you're a true boot licking corporate cuck

>>16644453

It is a victimless crime

>>16645666

iirc there was a leak that they were planning on it before they totally canned development for the system on worked on the switch

>what is retroarch on the switch

>>16645706

The counter argument to that is why does it matter if there's an official service or not. Sure if you don't want to bring the ire of nintendo on your ass or a fanboy, but most of the userbase doesn't really give a shit about that.

>>16645718

userbase here*

>>16645718

Look man, if you're already using homebrew for emulation on the switch, you're already set as far as older titles go, there's really no point in bringing it up, because it's bluntly obvious if you're already doing that you have zero incentive to go official.

>>16644436

>vita is a good and very cheap portable emulator.

This.

If battery life is more important to you, and you dont mind having a little less power to play with, then CFW 3DS is a good alternative.

>>16645740

>there's really no point in bringing it up, because it's bluntly obvious if you're already doing that you have zero incentive to go official.

Unless you're trying to convince other people not to go official as well. Either because you think homebrew has more options or you believe nintendo's reselling with their old titles are unethical for some reason. I know that some folks don't want a stupid debate over this shit every fucking time when classic titles appear on consoles, but this type of discussion is always going to be brought up when easily emulated games are resold on consoles.

>>16644453

>thinking terms of service are legally binding

I don't recall signing anything

>>16644453

Thread ruined

Pretty sure new Nintendo wants new hardware before adding other systems to make them exclusive.

>>16644372

I'd like to see Nintendo actually release ROMS but allow people to actually play then online. Imagine old games given new life by allowing gamers to play games like Melee, Custom Robo, Kirby's Air Ride and F-Zero online without any bullshit. Hell they could probably tweak F-Zero or GoldenEye to include more players for online multiplayer. The issue is that Nintendo is run by old men who don't know how technology works. That and I'm kinda worried that the tariffs fucked over the Switch Pro, but I'd rather spend the extra money than support Communist China.

I'm really hoping for gamecube and n64 games. I never played a game from either console before.

>>16644453

The users here have truly become jews in mind and soul when there's this many replies mocking a man with actual character.

>>16647589

Retard. Laws are written by jews.

>>16644372

How about they just add awesome games to the nes library

>TwinBee

>Soccer

>Tennis

>Star Soldier

>Clu Clu Land™

>City Connection

I grew up on NES.

NOBODY PLAYED OR EVEN OWNED THESE SHIT TITLES

<I KNOW GUISE. LETS ADD HYDLIDE

>>16648030

To be fair, Hydlide is a classic in Japan because it came out on Japanese home PCs 5 years before it ever came to the US. Hydlide could never hope to compete with LoZ, but in Japan, it didn't have to. But yeah here in the US it's just old and busted, and let's not even fucking talk about the sequels.

inb4 no NGC, ever

>>16645804

Unethical for some reason? 175 year copyright is unreasonable. You can easily argue that Mario, like doom has enough cultural significance it should belong to the culture at large. People should be able to tinker with it and modify it since it's a foundation for such a large part of media.

>>16647082

The New 3DS pissed me off so much. I wasn't even going to buy a 3DS but I got a used 2DS for like 50$ only for them to release that shit a month later. Then it turns out you cant play SNES games without a NuDS for reasons.

>>16647589

Not all laws are morally just or worth following. Anyone who obeys an unjust or arbitrary law just because "that's the law bruh" is a man of dishonest character and most likely kiked in the brain.

>>16644372

Proper Switch Homebrew fucking when?

>>16648078

Mario isn't that old, he hasn't even had a "normal human lifespan" given that he first appeared less than fifty years ago.

It is an interesting discussion to have though, since we've long since entered the time when IP belongs to a corporation and not a single individual.

I'd be all for an amendment to the copyright laws that states that culturally significant works are freely usable as long as there's no profit to be made from them, so fan-games and movies and whatever can be produced and shared freely, or distributed at-cost.

Or entering into a "licensed by" agreement where it can then be sold for profit via profit sharing with the IP creators.

Extending copyright to the point the Disney corp has to keep their mitts on the mouse is ludicrous, but expecting an author to retain the rights to his works for the duration of his life is not.

>>16644453

Did you buy the 8chan pass before posting? Not having a pass and still posting is illegal too you know.

>>16648078

>you're too successful

>therefore your creations are our now

That's more jewish than the existing copyright laws, and that's saying something.

>>16648477

Copyright for life time is also an insane concept. The point of copyright is to encourage creators to create by giving them a monopoly on their work for a brief period of time. If you extend that to life then any one with 1 brilliant piece of work can live off of it for life. Long after it lost any relevance to them as a person but not the culture.

Happy birthday as a song is under copyright. Something so fundamental to the culture and that the creator had no hand in spreading the way it has shouldn't cost money to use. It shouldn't cost me money to sing happy birthday in my random youtube video but by law it does.

There is a reasonable window for copyright. The idea isn't a bad one, but copyright can't be globally enforced and the internet makes it meaningless. Hence why I would much rather see a system like Patreon supporting people instead of copyright. Creators create new things to maintain a support base instead of relying on copyright to keep living off of 1 song they song in their teenage years (and likely their kids do too).

>>16649278

Do you understand how retarded you are?

>I drew a mouse for 50 years

>You're not allowed to draw my mouse

Why can't I draw a mouse or sing a song without being charged for it? If 2 people have the same idea at the same time why should 1 own it and not the other? If I live in chucklefuck no where and completely independent of Disney invent a mouse, a duck and a dog who look identical to theirs why shouldn't I be able to use those ideas?

You've so fucking jewed you've arguing for jewish ideas.

>>16649334

I didn't say anything about copyright laws themselves, retard. That's a different point.

In the example anon used of things being "too culturally relevant", it essentially boils down to

>I drew a mouse for fifty years

>My mouse is the most popular mouse in the world

<therefore I cannot own my mouse anymore

<but this other retard who also drew his mouse for fifty years get to keep his mouse because his wasn't as popular

As for copyright laws themselves, yes, what Disney has pushed is ridiculous but there is nothing wrong with a person wanting to own his own creations. If you cannot own your creations, why even bother?

>>16649352

None of what you've said has anything to do with the fact that pirating games and hacking the Switch to play them isn't morally wrong at all, and anyone who voluntarily obeys a law that only exists for the purposes of profit and not morality when they have the option to get it for free instead is a fool, not a goodhearted, ethical, or wise man.

>>16649357

None of what I said has anything to do with that because I'm not talking about that, dumbass. I responded to one specific post in particular, a post talking about how Mario and Doom should be in the public domain.

>>16649352

Popularity doesn't come into it. The popular and unpopular mouse both have the same limited life span of say 10 years before they become public domain.

A person doesn't own shit, it's all artificial. China doesn't give a fuck who owns Mickey Mouse, it does whatever the fuck it wants with it. It's all arbitrator and the terms of the contract have been abused beyond repair. You should have some protection to sell your product exclusively for a limited time. You shouldn't have that for life because it stagnates shit. Just look at modding for an example of what non-copyright can do for a product. A game like Doom was one of the most popular games of the 2010s because of Brutal doom. Now if you lock Doom down with copyright then we never get that Worse better thing.

That's my entire point. Limited protection for a window is good. Unlimited protection for life is not.

>>16649328

>happy birthday as a song is under copyright

No, it isn't. Warner Bros own the copyright to a specific piano arrange version of the song. That didn't stop them from filing unnecessary lawsuits using their team of lawyers to bully their victims into a settlement, but they have no real legal merit to go after people for copyright over Happy Birthday.

>>16649391

>They own it

>But they don't own it

>But it doesn't matter either way because they still abuse the law to strangle people any way

How about we just have 10 years of copyright and then no law can be abused to fuck people over? Problem solved.

>>16649328

>Happy birthday as a song is under copyright.

No it isn't. Warner Music got bitched out hard for their bullshit and a judge put it in the public domain years ago.

>>16649384

>Popularity doesn't come into it.

But in >>16648078 you said

>You can easily argue that Mario, like doom has enough cultural significance it should belong to the culture at large.

So which is it? Do massive popular IPs/creatiosn that become part of the zeitgeist lose copyright status early under your system, or do they not?

The idea that someone shouldn't be allowed to keep their creations for the duration of their own life is fucking insane to me. It's not just Jewish, it's communist. Taking someone's property that has actual value (and it does have value or else people wouldn't want it) and allowing anyone to use it while the creator gets shafted, like Stoker's widow did by Universal with their Dracula bullshit, is pure jewry.

>>16649408

Nothing denies the original owner access to their creations. It's not their property, it doesn't exist as property. There is no spirit of Mickey Mouse that is taken from someone by someone else if they draw a picture of Mickey fucking a horse.

You're screaming jew at someone saying the jewish system fucks up everything and makes things actively worse. You completely ignored a very good example of Doom, which survives entirely because copyright is not enforced in any way at all upon it. Doom being open source and able to be modded in every way possible is a huge resource which then leads to better games being made. You're little jew scheme of locking everything up behind lawyers and black boxes just stagnates everything.

The example above was of 2 exact same scenarios being treated differently.

>Person 1 invents the wheel

>Patents it

>Can now stop everyone else making wheels for their entire life

>Person 2 has never heard of Person 1

>Person 2 lives on the opposite side of the island and never saw a wheel

>Cuts down a tree one day and sees a round log roll down a hill

>Figures out this can be useful and invents the wheel

>Gets sued into oblivion because Person 1 invented the wheel 5 months earlier

Explain why you seem to think it's fair for person 1 to fuck person 2, when neither interacted with each other in any way at all. And now you have what Nintendo did with copyright and patents on a fucking controller.

>>16649434

Your long example doesn't even make sense, considering the vast majority of lawsuits over trademark infringement, especially for products like that wheel you mentioned, are when an attempt is made to profit off of it (case in point, Patreons made for Mario romhacks, or attempting to sell a product identical to one that exists). For that second one, a product identical to one that already exists, there is no longer an excuse in the modern world, considering you're going to need to do a patent search to sell your product anyway, and you can do a Google search to get at least a general idea if something similar exists.

For the first thing you said, however, consider the fact that you essentially might as well be taking away the IP from the owner. Say, Mario was made public domain. Now nothing is stopping anyone - Sony, Microsoft, Activision and hundreds of random indieshit - can make their own Mario games, put them on any console they want, Switch included, and there is no distinction to the layman for what is "true" Mario anymore. And if Nintendo tried, by highlighting their own games above anyone else's Mario games, they would get struck down with anti-trust laws.

You can say that the creator should compete by standards of quality, but you cannot outcompete the entire world, all at once. Additionally, if some mom out there bought a couple of those indieshit Marios and the kid thought they were shit and broken, because they are, they'll never buy Mario games again, costing the original creator a sale he could have otherwise had. At that point, the creator has nothing - even the fact that he created something is meaningless because his creation has itself become meaningless, due to getting assraped by any stranger that felt like having a go.

>>16649477

>And if Nintendo tried, by highlighting their own games above anyone else's Mario games, they would get struck down with anti-trust laws.

That's a load of bullshit you're pulling up if I ever heard it, you better have a source for that.

>>16649434

That's patent law, not copyright. just as retarded, different reasons.

>>16649477

>lawsuits over trademark infringement, especially for products like that wheel you mentioned

Wheels are covered by patents, not trademarks. what the fuck are you saying.

>the vast majority of lawsuits over trademark infringement are when an attempt is made to profit

That's because trademarks only cover use in commerce, and it's also much easier to sue a business than some random faggot making porn. Also what are dilution lawsuits

>taking IP

>from the """owner"""

""""IP"""" is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. you literally cannot own it.

>Say, Mario was made public domain

That means you can share old Mario works freely. That's all. See next point why.

>Now nothing is stopping anyone

>At that point, the creator has nothing

<what is a trademark infringement lawsuit

Trademarks are corporations' ace up their sleeves. Sure, Mario and Mickey can enter the public domain, however, that doesn't mean jack shit when they're the face of a corporation. No disclaimer will save you.

Trademarks are supposed to address consumer confusion and prevent fraud, NOT give some asshole the ability to control a franchise/story/character/setting. It should do the former WITHOUT doing the latter. I mean, imagine if fucking classical mythology gods were trademarked by a corporation.

>if some mom out there bought a couple of those indieshit Marios and the kid thought they were shit and broken

Then the original """creator""" could add some kind of MARK, that lets people know it's an OFFICIALLY ENDORSED product. Unauthorized reproduction of this mark by anyone else would be breaking the law. Sound familiar?

>highlighting their own games above anyone else's Mario games

That's exactly what a mark does and it's legal.

>>16649592

Consider both of these.

http://archive.is/Uxxf3

http://archive.is/CswO8

>>16649611

That's giving your application/service preferential treatment (functionality, exemptions), not adding some identificatory feature to identify its origin.

>MS forcefully bundled IE and baked it into the OS, and pushed proprietary standards-noncompliant behaviors

>Apple was abusing its poisition as platform makers and policymakers of their 'AppStore' to benefit their own offerings, blocking 3rd party apps from adding certain functionality like external links to buy something (bypassing Apple's 30% charge for in-app purchases), restricted access to hardware for 3rd party apps, and forced Kaspersky to remove features from their app only for Apple to implement them themselves, etc.

>>16649611

(((Wikipedia))) is not a source.

When we can emulate gameboy/gameboy color/SNES games for free on our phones, they better offer n64 and gamecube games, otherwise it's not worth even mentioning