Live data from Hacker News

Valve's latest Steam Deck trailer briefly plugs a Nintendo Switch emulator

gamedeveloper.com

131–140 of 214 posts

Re: Valve's latest Steam Deck trailer briefly plugs a Nintendo Switch emulator

#131
post #7

And what's the problem exactly? It's just emulation - if anything should cause a stir, it should be nintendo for their anti-consumer behaviour

VALVe themselves have game IPs they want to protect. Within the boundary of "it's legal, wygd" there are always ways to make pirating VALVe games easier and VALVe will stand no ground to ban those.

Re: Valve's latest Steam Deck trailer briefly plugs a Nintendo Switch emulator

#132
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Make copyright something you register and pay for and companies making no money from them would simply stop paying.

This but apply to all property. Unused lots of land will be a liability. Empty houses should be onerously expensive.

But if someone takes your land, you lose it. If someone looks at a bootleg photo of your land you still have your land, if you ever choose to monetize it again.

Re: Valve's latest Steam Deck trailer briefly plugs a Nintendo Switch emulator

#133
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will admit that I am mildly concerned with this myself. I dislike that everywhere now there are youtube videos showing off how you can make play Switch games, but on Deck. We are effectively forcing Nintendo's hands. While it was a niche thing, they mostly didn't have to care and now they might have to.. Things MAY work out to the benefit of regular users ( though often they work out to the benefit of those with be…

This attitude of "fearing Nintendo" strikes me as incredibly weird. Force 'em, who cares? That's competition. Love the Wii, but also it's obviously that they've had to make some terrible deals with the devil for the Switch. And this is because Steam's model is broadly superior, for the simple fact that respects both creators and users autonomy more. Nintendo can catch up to the times or Nintendo can get it's lunch ea…

This is where I think the disconnect lies. You think it is about competition and business model. You think the best product wins. You think that just because Steam's product is better, it automatically follows that they would not be subject to whims and vagaries of the court systems ( yes, systems ). Creators and users are not meaningless, but serve as mere pawns to be traded between warring corporate entities. As users, best we can hope for is that current retarded copyrights are not enforced harder than they are already.

Nintendo's financial status is public knowledge as they are a public company. Steam's profit and warchest is unknown, but estimated below Nintendo. In short, if both sides dig in, it could be a while.

I am fine with Nintendo going down as a result of that potential fight, but are you ok with it being a pyrrhic victory, where US legal copyright landscape changes further to the user's detriment?

Do you care about that?

Re: Valve's latest Steam Deck trailer briefly plugs a Nintendo Switch emulator

#134
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few humble bundle products are financially successful. It's easy to think otherwise because of the standout few.

Does humble bundle have "products"? I thought it was just a dumping ground for when sales slowed elsewhere, not the main place to try and sell something. So financially successful would just be any money

There's a scant few products that launched first on HB, but yes, it does seem like a hail Mary dumping ground for previously-failed products, and a cheap marketing platform to drive interest in existing IP.

Re: Valve's latest Steam Deck trailer briefly plugs a Nintendo Switch emulator

#135
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, let's go further. Copyright is designed "to promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts." That should be the first question.

Let's go even further. Copyright was meant to be "time limited". Why is it that Nintendo still has the rights to works they released over 20 years ago even though they've already turned a profit several times over? Why do they get to sell them to people over and over again?

Because people choose to keep buying them. The seller doesn't decide how many times it gets purchased, the buyers do.

Re: Valve's latest Steam Deck trailer briefly plugs a Nintendo Switch emulator

#136
post #51

Oddly enough, the light that Humble Bundles have shone into gaming revenue cycles has made me question our copyright system as a whole. Stay with me. In Europe during the time of Mozart, composers were incentivized to be prolific by only getting royalties off the first public performance of their works. Now that is not fair today because of course we can losslessy reproduce such things infinitely. However, Humble Bun…

I believe the specific reason why copyright is in such an awful state for rewarding creation is tied to the ease of copying.

When copying was extremely hard(back in antiquity) everyone who was an artisan was producing 1 art per 1 unit. So you didn't even need a state-level enforcement of copyright; either it was good work or it wasn't.

During the run-up to industrialization more possibilities to make units without making art came about. But the means of production were still capital and labor-intensive - there were only so many printing presses in town. Therefore, copyright built a social contract: the state enforces what the presses can do to copy your work. As soon as you exited the borders of that state, piracy was prolific.

This regime continued all the way through the 20th century and only started cracking when homemade copies became good enough, which, within media industries now fully enmeshed with state interests, the obvious response was "don't tape at home, don't copy that floppy, you wouldn't download a car."

Nowadays there is no scarcity of copies, only scarcity of attention. "Likes" are effectively a currency, but likes aren't state money, they're an awkward mediation of platform algorithms. Instead we have a two-class media system where, in each form of media, there's "the industry", which deploys all the mechanisms of the state(corporate investment, IP laws, marketing campaigns) to encourage consumers to give up their state bucks, and then the "gig workers", who have assembled a patchwork of social media mechanisms to get eyeballs to their work and pick up commissions, crowdfunding, and other forms of fundraising that allow indirect exits to state bucks. Because you mostly can't get paid for what you already did without utilizing the full might of the state, everyone is inclined to push monetization further towards promises of future work: the stretch goal, DLC, etc. Buying the rumor and selling the news.

In this framework, we have to discuss NFTs. They aren't "ready for use" in the current state of things, but they present an alternative mode of exit: discard the unit production mindset and define the art as a financial asset. It already has some analogue in the gallery system, but digitization makes it a cheap, low-friction process. With "all my apes are gone" comes some demonstration of effectiveness: You can, in fact, just put a price to art, let traders make risky gambles with it, and rely on a non-state, independently operated system to give you a cut of the resulting carnage.

What we don't have yet is strong coordination between likes and trading. What made NFTs a bubble was the degree of misrepresentation on display; far too many works were being inflated through traditional boiler-room schemes, and many more were stolen works scraped from unwilling or unaware sources. Everyone pounced on proof-of-concept tech with an angle for a rug pull. But this is the kind of thing that tech has seen many waves of: snake oil salesmen turning some genuine breakthrough into fools' gold, followed by a gradual address of each specific problem that made it foolish.

So I think of the possibilities for art as a thing society can fund and reward going forward as a thing that will look both more social-media-like and asset-like; maybe not in the specific mode NFTs took, or in the specific form that engagement on TikTok takes, but drawing on some aspects of both and building a greater-than-the-sum result.

Re: Valve's latest Steam Deck trailer briefly plugs a Nintendo Switch emulator

#137
post #61

While this is legal, Nintendo is very vocally anti-emulation. Nintendo and Denuvo announced anti-emulation measures for switch games in August 2022. There's a big difference between support and marketing support. Nintendo doesn't care what other companies do internally, but cares a lot about what is shown publicly. I remember when Nintendo took down a bunch of youtube videos showing how to jailbreak the original swit…

> Nintendo and Denuvo announced anti-emulation measures for switch games in August 2022. Are there details on those measures?

I haven't ready any public writeups from emulator developers, no games have been released with it but Zelda BOtW2 is expected to have it. Some guesses are that it will be based on measuring specific call execution times.

The switch is already weak in terms of hardware so I am not sure how many games will end up integrating it. Regardless of what Denuvo says in marketing, it will slow down games. Nintendo has since tried to distance itself from it, but Denuvo has said they have entered NDA agreements with large publishers already. Denuvo would also need low level access and approval from Nintendo, so I am not sure why Nintendo is pretending to separate itself from this effort.

Re: Valve's latest Steam Deck trailer briefly plugs a Nintendo Switch emulator

#138
post #77
post #18

To the people saying "it's completely legal, what can Nintendo do" it might be worth considering that not everything is about legal / not legal. Companies and people have relationships and it's not always about if something is technically allowed, it's about how it's being understood by the other party and in this case it's pretty clear that Nintendo is not a big fan of emulators.

Nintendo has no relationship with Valve or really PC gaming as a whole at all. They are pretty much as hostile as it gets towards any platform that isn't their own, to the point that a planned collaboration with Fortnite fell through because they were simply not willing to allow any of their characters to be visible on other platforms. Valve isn't burning any bridges here because there were no bridges to begin with.

> Nintendo has no relationship with Valve

Portal and Portal 2 recently released on the Switch

Re: Valve's latest Steam Deck trailer briefly plugs a Nintendo Switch emulator

#139
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd prefer a system, where the author has to actually and actively be trying to make money in a specific market, before the copyright can be applied in that specific case (as with trademark law, where the owner has to actively protect the trademark). Some nintendo games are currently not available anywhere (from nintendo or from original publisher), but if you copy/download that rom, you can get fined due to fictiona…

Whatever the merits of your sugggestion, verifying that a company was "actually and actively be trying to make money" would be wide open to abuse and practically speaking, impossible.

This could be easily solved, if the burden of proof was on the company itself... when they report/sue you for copyright infringement, they'd just have to prove, that it's reasonably simple for the person to obtain the material legally (so, is there a (eg nintendo) distributer in the country of the accused, is there a store that sells those games there, is it possible to buy it online, etc.). If there are no reasonable legal ways to obtain the material, then you cannot claim lost profit and the "pirate" cannot get fined/sued for infringement.

Re: Valve's latest Steam Deck trailer briefly plugs a Nintendo Switch emulator

#140
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Make copyright something you register and pay for and companies making no money from them would simply stop paying.

This but apply to all property. Unused lots of land will be a liability. Empty houses should be onerously expensive.

empty houses in the middle of nowhere dont bother anyone.
Post reply on HN