I honestly don’t know how. Any non Nintendo 3D game it’s instantly super obvious. And any game at all it’s obvious if you just try to navigate a menu with it.

They make the $10 Chinese junk alternates look amazing by comparison.

I’m not just talking about the drift. The actual intended product is ludicrously imprecise out of the box.

It changed gaming. The steam deck probably doesn’t happen without the switch. It clearly demonstrated the market for a handheld that manages large scale 3D games with complex mechanics.

But the joycons suck at more than connectivity. Straight out of the box those joysticks are fucking terrible, and they degrade hard and fast.

I’m always skeptical of anything LLM, but this looks like an interesting use case on the surface.

Fuck everything about blocking the hardware and hardware mods, but if it’s true that he was packaging games with it, you don’t even get to any of that, because they’re probably going to get every dime he has for “selling” their games.

I wonder how much the reasonably common “being assigned this stance to write about” assignments play a role in this.

I went to meaningfully above average schools by a lot of metrics, including spending, and I still did way more “persuasive writing” assignments where I was handed a conclusion than ones where I was free to draw my own and justify it. So I was literally taught to do this and basically had to unlearn it.

Maybe he’s just enthusiastic about a game that does something he’s into?

I would much rather pay full price than still pay for a DRMed version that’s effectively guaranteed to be supporting some sort of organized crime group. Mass distribution at scale, with DRM, by definition means Russian organized crime, or a drug cartel, or some other global bad actor on that scale that’s doing shit like trafficking humans, arms dealing, drugs, etc, as well.

But ignoring that (and that I generally buy my content), I wouldn’t pay $.10 for an illegitimate copy that had an added layer of DRM on it. It’s fundamentally fucking repulsive for some subgroup whose whole business relies on bypassing someone else’s copy control to add their own.

DRM on pirated games is fucking gross as shit.

DNS names are restricted to your tailnet’s domain name (node-name.tailnet-name.ts.net)

I guess that’s fine for some. Not a compromise I’m willing to make though.

The performance (at least on the Pro; I gave my original to my brother) has definitely improved a lot, too. It was a slide show on the original and the pro with and without boost mode enabled for a good while after I bought the PS4 pro, but it’s not bad now. Load times suck though. I basically only made progress once I switched to PS5 and got to take advantage of the SSD. (Note that PS4 games still load way slower than PS5 games on PS5, for the most part.)

Because it’s a copy. It’s literally that simple.

Libraries can operate because of first sale doctrine. You can do almost whatever you want with a physical object that contains a copyrighted work.

What you can’t do is copy it. There is no possible legal way to distribute a digital copy of a work without an explicit license from the copyright holder. There isn’t even a legal concept of “owning” a digital copy. You purchase a license.

There’s really no credible argument that their distribution of books even might be legal.

Their only defense is fair use, and there’s no precedent for a “fair use” defense justifying copying a work wholesale for mass distribution. (Yes, “one copy at a time” to multiple people is mass distribution.) Copying a whole work has effectively only qualified as fair use when that copy is not re-distributed, and is actually for a personal backup.

The constitution explicitly grants authority to regulate IP. There’s absolutely no path to a constitutional issue, and constitutional issues are the only way you get laws overturned. “Other legal doctrine” means something like violations of due process somewhere in the chain, which is a constitutional issue, or direct conflict with another law.

The only possible judicial remedy is the premise that it’s fair use, which there’s a lot of precedent that it isn’t.

What Internet Archive did is digitized physical books, then loaned out their “one copy” with DRM. Their assertion is that this constitutes fair use. I don’t really think there’s any merit to that argument based on the law and the body of precedent, and fundamentally tend to dislike legislation from the bench (judges just arbitrarily reinterpreting laws). Passing new laws and restructuring how IP law works is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary.

IA then made this worse by taking the already super tenuous “fair use” argument and throwing it out the window by removing the lending limits during Covid. It was waving a red flag in front of IP holders and begging them to take aggressive action.

But those moves have traditionally come when a game is out and has, by whatever metric, failed. Or, at the other end of the scale, when a game fails to get off the ground earlier in development, and a publisher decides to cut its losses, or as it would probably say, “reallocate resources”. To commit five years of work, to build an entire company around the goal of producing a single game, and then throw it all in the bin just days before it was supposed to come out is a whole new level of ineptitude that’s particularly cruel, even by this industry’s cruel-by-default standards.

Abandoning a project right out of the gate before there’s a real chance to see what it can be is “cruel”.

Recognizing that a product doesn’t deserve to be shipped is a good thing. They gave it a great chance to get to a finished product, evaluated where it was at, and had the decency to not shovel shit out the door and rip people off.

I’d be all for altering definitions in a way that enables them to do stuff like the controlled lending system (also just digitizing shit generally).

But I think the law is pretty clear, and a precedent calling their use case fair use would be mind blowing. You need new, much more common sense IP legislation that redefines consumer rights in a digital world.

How the GPL works is that anyone who buys the game is fully entitled to share the source code with anyone else completely legitimately (modified or unmodified), provided they include the license.

It’s not piracy to do so.

That’s not a different or added risk vs a website.

The only change is that it’s significantly easier to keep an archive going.

It’s not theirs. What you grant them is a non-revocable permanent worldwide license to use the content.

This is mostly necessary for the service to function, which is why it never really got pushback in the “early days” when communities were more tech literate. You need to be able to serve the content to users, and to a lesser extent being able to share popular active discussion topics is a big part of enabling the service to form communities.

What clearly isn’t necessary is the “non-revocable” part. People should be able to delete their posts, and excluding for the purpose of moderation, have them removed. What also would be part of an “ethical” platform (to me), is a clear restriction in purpose to that license. I would limit my rights to the ability to use the content for the purpose of providing the “forum”(/whatever), moderation, and sharing public posts/comments to attract people to the community. But that’s something that isn’t trivial to write a contract for, and it is worth noting that unless they gave away DMs (which is extra awful), all of this content was deliberately public.

You could, as a host of an instance, have mostly whatever terms you want. The code is open source and it’s not typical for open source licenses (including the GPL) to restrict things like that (you could probably structure a license that qualified as open source to prevent you from doing abusive things to end users of a service, but restricting how you serve it at all is unusual).