Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why is Nintendo obliged to provide older content, or otherwise allow emulation? Provide older content, no, "allow" emulation, yes. It's not even "allow", Nintendo doesn't have the authority to allow or disallow anyone from making, distributing and running emulators.
They might not have the legal authority, but is their firm stance against emulators morally questionable? I may agree their methods are questionable, but I don't know if their stance is. Nintendo's stance against emulation seems consistent with their approach to game design and game management.
Nintendo is removing switch emulation videos on Steam Deck from YouTube
301–307 of 307 posts
Re: Nintendo is removing switch emulation videos on Steam Deck from YouTube
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> is it immoral for me to have no kids because it means the extinction of the human race? > Yes! This is a flawed rule then.
The birth rate of 1.5 children per women in Canada for example is unsustainable. Having it less than 2.0 means a lot of people are not pulling their weight in society. While there are other factors, not having children is immoral. For one, who will take care of you once you are no longer active? Our system relies on the next generation tax to pay services to elderly.
Re: Nintendo is removing switch emulation videos on Steam Deck from YouTube
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm all for emulating systems that don't exist anymore. But this commenter's level of naive entitlement is beyond obnoxious. A good rule to live by is to ask "what would happen if everyone did X?" In this case, Nintendo would cease to exist. Maybe you'd be happy about this. Plenty of people wouldn't. Switches are generally available and not that expensive. If you want to play Switch games, buy one. If you don't, don'…
People think theft is liberation, which is… a problematic notion. “Everybody should have rights to enjoy / read…”
And copyright is an artificial monopoly on information.
Re: Nintendo is removing switch emulation videos on Steam Deck from YouTube
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
Emulator devs don't want to be sued by Nintendo, adding code to acquire games from their servers would be an incredibly risky move even if they were able to check what's owned on an account.
Is this substantially different from e.g. Dolphin downloading Virtual Console and WiiWare games? (In Dolphin's case, this works because Dolphin can emulate the Wii Shop channel. You used to be able to make purchases directly in Dolphin, and you can still redownload previously-purchased software.)
"Wii Shop Channel has functionalities that requires proper network certificates extracted from an IOS to work."
"Keys from a real Wii are required."
"a proper NAND is required."
https://wiki.dolphin-emu.org/index.php?title=Wii_Shop_Channe...
If Dolphin was distributing any of that they'd be getting a letter from Nintendo.
Re: Nintendo is removing switch emulation videos on Steam Deck from YouTube
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legally? No. Morally? Yes.
How are they morally obligated (or suggested) to provide access to older games?
Re: Nintendo is removing switch emulation videos on Steam Deck from YouTube
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that the 2 children mate with each other?
How in the world does any human old enough to know about the birds and the bees not grasp the essential math of human reproduction? It takes 2 to replace 2. Not 1 for 1, 2 for 2. How the ever loving F do you wind up asking about the 2 kids mating with each other? What the hell is going on in there?
The context though is the current real world: It’s perfectly fine to have 1 kid or even no kids at all and just adopt existing orphans, because a lot of other people have been having way more than 2 kids for way too long.
Re: Nintendo is removing switch emulation videos on Steam Deck from YouTube
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
How in the world does any human old enough to know about the birds and the bees not grasp the essential math of human reproduction? It takes 2 to replace 2. Not 1 for 1, 2 for 2. How the ever loving F do you wind up asking about the 2 kids mating with each other? What the hell is going on in there?
I was thrown off by your “replace”, replace who? Maybe you were thinking about a hypothetical perfect mathematical world that started off with a lot of couples in the 1st generation and people died after giving birth. The context though is the current real world: It’s perfectly fine to have 1 kid or even no kids at all and just adopt existing orphans, because a lot of other people have been having way more than 2 kid…
Someone misunderstood the purpose off that question, and said that by that logic everyone should have 2 kids. They were wrong about that but not because the number 2 was wwrong. 2, or really 2.something, is the number that everyone has to have, IF they were applying the "what if everyone does X" correctly.
What they were wrong about was a couple things:
1 The question isn't a simple litteral absolute rule. It's a tool that you use along with others to evaluate some idea or action. It only helps judge one dimension among many.
A previous commenter gave the simple example of queues. Imagine you have figured out a trick that lets you get away with jumping every line. The trick works. No one else in the line ever complains that you're cutting instead of waiting for your turn.
What's the harm then? Free market people like to try to excuse bad actions that way. Maybe the trick is you tell a joke, so it's a transaction, the people you cut in front of voluntarily let you and they got a funny joke out of it.
The question exposes the problem, because, ok, cool, life hack, do this trick and never have to wait in a line again. Since it's sound advice, let's teach this knowledge to everyone in schools. What happens then? Does it still work?
This exposes that this advantage you are taking is actually coming from somewhere. You aren't just more efficient at lines, you are benefitting only on the backs of everyone else.
2 In this case the X in "What if everyone did X?" wouldn't be "have exactly 2.36 children" it would be more like "had however many children they wanted"
Because it turns out that people want different things, and so if you just let everyone have however many kids they want or feel they can manage, it more or less works out naturally.
Everyone doesn't want 5 kids, or 0 kids, and so if everyone did what they want, it's fine, and so it's fine for you to have however many kids you want.
You CAN in fact have just 1 kid if you want.
But the thing you were replying to was about the basic math, and 2 was the right number in the context of that oversimplified misunderstanding of "what if everyone did that?" If letting people do what they want would not work out, and we had to make a rule to make everyone do exactly the same thing, it would indeed be everyone has to have 2 kids.