It shouldn't be, but fighting Microsoft in court would be hellish, and not even a guaranteed win given how much undue influence corporations have over the justice system and politicians.
I can agree that GoG doesn't have a large share of the market, but I'm still unconvinced of the benefit of this call for competition for competition's sake when it's introducing anti-competitive practices. Usually we want competition to push back against anti-competitive practices.
Ok, I really don’t get Epic hate. Sure, they’re using shitty practices to attempt to compete with the megolith Valve is, and it sucks.
Meanwhile GOG attempts to compete by offering features that other platforms don't offer, like DRM-free installers and a multi-platform game launcher.
If Epic got to #1 place, what guarantees there are that they would stop using exclusivity deals to hinder their own competitors? It might just be that we end up with a more anti-competititve market leader, and then what would be the benefit of having overtaken Steam?
It's definitely disingenuous. They are using their legal defense as marketing, "you guys don't get it, we are just sooo much more secure as a monopoly".
Hanlon's Razor shouldn't be used for business and politics because there are big incentives to be malicious and play dumb there.
What you call "building the ecosystem" I'd call selling products to users that should be allowed to make their own choices. They could very well choose to stick with Apple, but why does Apple get to decide that for them?
I've heard people saying just the opposite. It couldn't run TotK before official release, and whoever made it run had to modify it independently (because it's an open source project)
Arguing that people wouldn't have downloaded it if not for the emulator, not only once again assigns blame to the wrong party ("if they didn't have motorcycles to get away they might not have stolen it"), but it overlooks that there are modded Switches that can run pirated copies too.
Pirating stuff before it's even out for sale is pretty sketchy, but Yuzu is not the one doing it. It simply lets people play copies they already have, including those they may have dumped themselves. Nintendo is encroaching on customer ownership rights by trying to argue even doing that is infringing.
edit: Maybe my analogy is lacking because one might argue that they rely on the tool to make use of the illicitly acquired thing, which is not necessarily true for a motorcycle. But if we say instead "the bluray player is to blame that people shoplifted" or "the media player is to blame that people downloaded pirated movies", then I believe it should be even more clear that they are accusing the wrong party.
The only way for Nintendo's reasoning to work is if they try to argue that not even someone who dumps their own roms and extracts their own keys from their own console ought to have the right to do it. Which would be disastrous for customer rights and preservation. Nintendo cannot be allowed to get away with that.
The thing is whatever beef they might rightfully have with 1,000,000 people pirating TotK, it's not the emulator who's to blame. The ones who distributed pirated copies are. They are trying to pin it entirely on the wrong group, out of convenience/intimidation.
This is like suing a motorcycle company because a thief used one as a getaway vehicle.
There's merit to that, but keep in mind that sometimes the game is bound to a service for the sake of enabling microtransactions to begin with, and if not for that they would have let players to host their own servers. This has happened to most multiplayer games from larger publishers.
It doesn't help that social media censorship is leading to a more constrained language, if anything. Not only profanities are either censored or shadowbanned by some platform algorithms, there's also general use words for sensitive topics such as suicide, abortion and the like.
Not really. People may talk shit about comments, but if it was just a matter of getting just articles, you might as well stick to the news sites. Even as far as pure news aggregation goes there are better options than relying on whatever a handful people decide to share here.
There's value in public commentary too. It may not be as polished as these articles but it provides a variety of perspectives, questions and criticism that might be pertinent, and for as lacking or biased as they may be, it's much easier to tell compared to sources trying to pretend impartiality.
There's a reason why we are here and not on, say, Feedly. This particular community only highlights it further, since it's entirely based on the interpersonal element. Ain't nobody looking for journalism or scientific articles on !Showerthoughts
They had a brand that was so powerful it was used as a verb, and he gave it up for the letter that is used as a generic placeholder, just because he's obssessed with it for whatever reason.
It shouldn't be, but fighting Microsoft in court would be hellish, and not even a guaranteed win given how much undue influence corporations have over the justice system and politicians.