Just to be clear, publishers don’t like reviewers, either. They’re seen as gatekeepers of audiences and people to be managed and bribed, and that means keeping the reviewer market small. They want reviewers to be PR people with a fascade of being impartial, and few enough to count on one hand.

This is also somwthing that’s happening, then, because Nintendo sees a pathway to victory. Not only are their games licensed only for their own hardware, but they can claim the reviews are misleading and invalid because the games aren’t designed to run on the platforms they’re beinf reviewed on.

Like, none of this is Nintendo coming for your emulation catalogue. It’s them coming for people trying to generate an income from their games. And all of the big publishers are going to line up behind them on this, because they also hate anyone who’s making coin using their creation.

That’s capitalism. That’s what it means for something to be capital, and to own it. It’s what owning the means of production is all about.

This is not about the legality of emulation, unfortunately, but about whether people have the rights to publish lets plays without a license.

Many suits in the gaming industry see lets plays as theft. They see people making money using their games and believe lets players should have to pay to license thst content, and that they should have the right to revoke that license if they don’t like what people are saying about or doimg with their games.

I work in the industry, and I know people who work or who have worked at studios owned by every major punlisher in the west. This is a thing they all habe someone of import chomping at the bit for.

It’s just that none of them want to be the one singled out as the first or only one attacking lets plays. Nor to be the one that shoulders the costs of having their position challenged in court.

This can’t be a new thing. This was one of the conditions Nintendo announced when they dropped their stupid “register with us to be allowed to do lets plays” thing.

Oh, and it’s not just Nintendo. All of the big publishers believe they own your videos that use their games. I’ve been involved in discussions with people personally who were trying to figure out how to demand licensing fees from YouTubers.

This is goingnto get worse before it gets better. This has been a traffic jam caused by everyone waiting for somebody to go first. Nintendo is just the one who has volunteered to be the first mover.

Not who you replied to, but I’ve experienced it on both vanilla Element and on Schildichat over and over, as well as repeated logouts that require signin approval from one of my other active sessions.

That are on devices on different floors of the house, or even in different parts of the city.

Shit’s jankey as hell.

And is just an extension to their licensing nonsense and publishing deals thst came beforex

Anyone surprised by any of this doesn’t care about Nintendo’s behaviour, just the impact the current move is having on their current fun.

A lot of games developers don’t understand trends in gaming that aren’t explicitly gamist. Even as walking sinulators and cozy games have garnered audiences that make those genres viable, many in the industry have refused to actually look at them with an eye to understand who they appeal to, why, and what about them is doing the connecting with their audiences.

I worked on a mobile PvP project that rejected purely aesthetic elements because none of the director, designer, not “monetization specialist” could understand why anyone would want them, even as Fortnite was bursting onto the scene making its money on its emotes and paper doll elements.

Art driven paper doll games were also eating our lunch in the mobile space.

There are clearly some in the industry who understand the appeal, but most of them are not decision makers in development studios. The decision makers got there by coming up in a much more focused, much less casual, much less inclusive era in gaming, and have a pretty fixed idea of what a game “is” or “is supposed to be”.

Because of this,aAs things shift towards more IP licensing deal, the results are going to be a lot of conflicts between tone and gameplay on these projects.

But they’re only getting paid for the time a primter would take to print it, because why should she pay for more for less?

Or at least a suggestion.

corporate profits decrease very slightly

This is the thing that people will reflexively point to, but this:

quality of life increases

This is the real issue. If quality of life increases, workers are less desperate, and are less willing to put up with their employers BS. Moreover, if other jobs are also paying a living wage, it’s much easier to quit.

We have seen, over and over, that businesses are willing to spend money to exert control over workers. They’ll do it even if it means a decline in profits, or even in revenue. Because at the end of the day, if you have your needs met, any money left over is just power, and power is meant to be used to control others.

Is this guy Trump’s VP pick because he’s the only person he could find that talks like Trump? The guy’s a rotting word salad machine

Then the OP just rented the software.

Adobe should pay more than the inflation-adjusted price - multiples of it, even - so that the repayment is actually punative.

I kind of suspect this was an attempt on the IA’s end to get parts of copyright struck down by court ruling. Laws can be clear and still found to not be in the public’s interest, or in violation of some other legal doctrine, and sometimes you’ll see groups come at them sideways.

Ownership laws are really tough ones to chip away at, and IP law in particular has been getting worse and more unassailable over time.

Sure, but if you install DR, then you have DR to do other things. Like chase that YouTuber dream, or field annoying calls from your great aunt who knows you can edit videos to digitize her parents super 8 family videos that are have rotten.

See, the thing is, the corporations believe they already own our money, so not giving it to them when they demand is the real injury, not us downloading a game or a movie. All the product does is tell them which internal bounty hunter to credit with the safe capture and return of what was already theirs.

You can’t truly degoogle chromium without a hard fork. Soft forks are still enabling them and their grip on the web, even if they’re not specifically spying on you in particular.

What they mean is “I use woefully malformed websites loaded up with all sorts of weird shit that eats ram on the regular, and somehow that’s my browser’s fault”

If that’s the case, I’d say the new mod did get the memo about Lemmy, and about the fediverse at large, and actually understood the legal risks involved in hosting this community.

Federation works by receiving and locally storing content from remote instances, which means any instance based in the USA is going to assume some significant legal risks by not banning this community.

It’s not that they’re refusing to let people look through a window into another, remote host. It’s that they’re refusing to host and serve that content from their own website.

It was deemed legal and fair use after the film and music industries sued VCR manufacturers and users.

So yeah, it absolutely was considered piracy by the media production and distribution companies. The courts disagreeing with them doesn’t change that.

It’s an argument against seed patents and capitalism.

Credit where credit is due, if we define a generation as a 15 year period of time, and we decide that Gen Z started in 1995 (for easy math), you do, in fact, land on 1665.

I don’t know why the author thinks that Gen D doesn’t exist yet, when the pattern of X, Y (Millennials), and Z make a pattern that both implies that the Latin alphabet’s use is coming to an end for this purpose (ignoring that Gen X was named not as part of a sequence of letters, but by Douglas Copeland’s book, which was titled itself using an existing phrase), and that can easily be extrapolated backwards through time.