Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)OT
Posts
7
Comments
3,348
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • 14 isn't old, it's not even legal age to buy cigarettes.

    I'll do some weird math.

    The first computer game could be argued to have been released in 1950, and the first commercial video game was released in 1971. Let's call it either 70 or 50 years ago.

    14 years is 20~28% of the entire history of video games.

    The first feature film came out in 1906; let's call it 120 years old. So let's calculate what 20~28% of this history of film is.

    20% of 120 years is 24 years, and 28% is 33.6, rounded to 34.

    So if you compare them by the "commercial video game vs. feature film" definition, a 14-year old game is like Beauty and the Beast, Hangin' with the Homeboys, or Showdown in Little Tokyo.

    If you want to use the "youngest" ratio, then we can compare Skyrim to films that are just 24 years old, like Shrek, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, or Spy Kids.

    I dunno, I think 14 years old is an old game! Haha

  • To clarify, I don't think the writers did anything wrong. The headline will be misleading because Nintendo's being somewhat misleading.

    I don't know how much the headline could be improved, if at all.

    Nintendo says NS2 GC controller will only "officially" support GC games

    Or if they can't quote "officially", they could quote "only". Which could arguably be more clickbaity, but also clue in a casual reader that there's more to what Nintendo officially says.

  • It's somewhat misleading. It's not providing the additional background information, and it leads the headline with the claim (not that Nintendo is making a claim).

    I don't think it's a bad headline. It'd be hard to include all the information in the headline. But if someone only reads the headline (something like 73% of people), they could end up with a mistaken conclusion. And those people will have been lead in that direction (so, mislead).

  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • The water on the other water makes the other water wet, and vice versa

    Coming at it from a colloquial definition and not a chemist's definition, though. And I prefer the colloquial definition of "wet".

  • laws

    Damages

    guilty

    morally convict

    crime

    ...lol

    What are you going on about?

    The reason I kept showing you the same comment is because you said things like "I'm deeply confused" and asking me what I'm saying.

    I'm not even arguing with you. But you seem to be putting a lot of effort into reading an argument into what I'm saying. Is this how you enjoy spending your time on social media? Lol

  • Why do you keep using words like "accuse" and "guilty"? Lol

    Nintendo benefitted financially from piracy and made no efforts to hide the fact that they obtained games through the exact same methods that pirates use.

    This is what I'm saying. I'm not even sure why you seem to be trying to make this a fight or an argument or something. "Tire you out"? Lol

  • I’m asking you to clearly formulate what it is that you’re accusing Nintendo of.

    For the third time...

    Nintendo benefitted financially from piracy and made no efforts to hide the fact that they obtained games through the exact same methods that pirates use.

    Which part is unclear to you? Lol

    Source, in case you're unfamiliar with this funny thing they did

  • What are you confused about?

    I don't understand what your angle is. It feels like you're really trying to win an argument, except you seem to be the only one arguing.

    I've been trying to sort out a misunderstanding, and it looks like you're trying to win something. The misunderstanding is sorted out. So, I guess you win, too?

  • No, I've understood this whole time that you're saying "Nintendo is legally allowed to do this with their own games".

    What I'm saying is "Nintendo benefitted from their game having been pirated because they downloaded and sold the exact version of the game that someone illegally pirated".

    Nintendo didn't do anything illegal. Someone did something illegal, and Nintendo saved time and effort (and therefore money too) because of the illegal thing that someone did.