Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SOLDIER First]

Um... proof?

[NullForceOmega]

Their abuse of YouTube content makers could very definitely be equated to theft.  They don't appear to actually comprehend that the way the DMCA is set up that they can't actually claim revenue from the bulk of the videos they force monetization on.

[umiman]

Um... proof?

They're notorious for stealing ad revenue from Youtubers under the name of copyright infringement. It's a big thing over there.

Jim Sterling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA8xrgLqQZ8

AngryJoe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz09W2Z6OOU

ReviewTechUSA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm3l7_tybAk

Nintendo are extremely backwards, except instead of being an amusing doddly old man who can't figure out how the internet works, this doddly old man is stealing ad revenue from legitimate reviews, comments, and entire shows that only show 30 seconds of their work in a 1/2 hour show. To get around this draconian system, you either need to do something like Jim Sterling's copyright deadlock where he plays multiple contentID systems against each other (but essentially surrenders ad revenue so no one gets it) or subscribe to Nintendo's Youtube Policy which basically states you will worship them like gods and never say a single bad thing about them also you will never curse, swear, or do anything even remotely un-child friendly.

----

If Nintendo were actually acting to protect their copyright, then they'd be pulling down all these videos of their stuff. That would, while still being extremely backwards, probably be more palatable than what they're doing now.

However, instead they will happily leave your video up but take every single cent of the ad revenue. So you could have spent a week editing and filming footage while doing a critical review of Breath of the Wild, only to have Nintendo come in literally 15 seconds after you upload and claim everything you would get from that video. It would be no different from a PC review magazine having all their ad money going straight to Ubisoft, even if they bought Asscreed 2 themselves and did all the work publishing the magazine. Ubisoft simply decided they now own that article you wrote.

Hell, that's not the worse part, in fact, even if you release your video without ads turned on, Ninty will claim your video, enable ads on it, and collect the revenue on that. That's how scummy they are.

----

So like Neonivek said, they're actually just straight up thieves, both intellectually and monetarily.

[KoE]

So, Mario Kart is out. I'm enjoying it as it's the first Mario Kart I've owned since Double Dash back in the Gamecube days, and the first kart racer I've bothered with since Sonic All-Stars-plus-more-words-I-can't-remember hit Steam a few years back.

But.

The online support is basically what you'd expect of Nintendo - functional, but bare bones to the point I can see the metaphorical marrow. As far as I can tell there's no way to party and queue up with a (remote) friend; you have to join a game and then *hope* that friend is able to join in the same session. And yes, as far as I'm aware, you have a Friend Code still.

This got me thinking; a lot of people are remarking that using their phone to tether to a 4G connection works splendidly for Mario Kart in particular in the Switch's natural habitat (i.e., outside of the home). This, in conjunction with the fact that as far as we know basic functionality like voice chat and groups are going to be offloaded to an app on your phone, makes me wonder if that's the point. Is Nintendo expecting a plurality of users to be gaming on the go in such a way that regular ol' wi-fi is insufficient, and thus are offloading what they can to a device they expect folks to already be actively using in conjunction with their Switch? We all know that the battery life is, charitably, less than stellar, so it does make some sense.

I know next to nothing about smartphones and mobile networks so I don't know if that's obvious or crazy to someone more literate than I. I just know that this decision has caused me considerable consternation, and I'd love some damn details, Nintendo lose sleep trying to puzzle out their reasons.

[Neonivek]

Wow, I am in shock... Nintendo is charging for internet and didn't actually improve the internet?

This is a twist.

Nevermind that this has been the case everytime... but total shock!

[Sean Mirrsen]

They're not actually charging for anything yet. That's kind of the point.

[Ozyton]

But will the functionality even improve once they do start charging for it? I wouldn't get my hopes up.

[Aklyon]

But will the functionality even improve once they do start charging for it? I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Functionally, maybe. In any usable way? No. They'll still be epically behind and relying on FCs.

[Neonivek]

I am just happy we can finally put that argument to rest.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It really is just disabling a "free" (or at least already accounted for in game price, except when it doesn't have a dedicated server) service and charging to turn it back on.

You know... like everyone already knew it was... and knew back when the Xbox did it.

Not that I blame people... Snob Appeal "If it is expensive, it has to be good" means that the natural human response is if they are charging for a service, it must somehow be superior. So the natural assumption runs counter to the reality that... yeah they are just taking your money because they can. It is the same logic behind some brands of bottled water that are literally just tap water (Or, even worse than tap water).

---

Then again Nintendo was never likely to fix their internet issues... because they weren't broken by accident. They are broken because it is a family console and they want to limit its functionality because of that fact.

Well I say "Family Console" but I should be more specific... I mean "Children's console". The sort of entertainment that is aimed at children but is glad to get some of that adult audience.

So it is a Family Console in the way that SpongeBob Squarepants is a family show... Not the way the Simpsons is a Family show.

[Wolfhunter107]

Neon, I'm sorry, but I don't have the slightest clue what you're trying to say there.

[Ozyton]

Basically he's saying how Nintendo is still clueless as to how people have been doing multiplayer and online interactions these days aside from how Sony and Microsoft can get away with forcing people to pay for it.

[KoE]

I would like to remark upfront that the bulk of my post was about the equally cuckoo-lander 'offloading basic functionality to smart phones' bit. I don't know if there's actually anything to actually remark on about that particular choice, but I thought I'd just mention it before blathering about paying for online multiplayer.

The argument I've seen is that for PC gaming, is that since it's generally trivially easy to run your own server, you can't really charge a blanket cost to 'play online' with a given title. Someone else will pop up with something free, whether that's a server for your game or a game that fills basically the same niche, only free. That's the nature of the platform being much more open.

For console games, it's harder for servers to just pop up. I don't know if there are technical reasons, but legally I assume it's all proprietary, two of the options are literally corporate titans, and the last one is, as has been gone on at length about here, trigger-happy with the legal action. In the grand scheme of things $5/month isn't exactly an exorbitant price, either (even in a yearly lump-sum). With consoles being the cheaper, 'just works'-ier options to game on, it makes sense for people to foot that bill (especially if your Halos and your Smash Bros. are held ransom for it).

The only thing that really gets to me about the subscription services in general is that (at least, supposedly) most console games are Peer-to-Peer, which does beg the question of why the heck you want me to pay if you aren't at least going to put that towards dedicated servers.

All I have to say with regard to Nintendo's paid service is they are really wasting the grace period they gave themselves to prove they could at least meet par. I don't know that Splatoon 2, Arms, and the by-then 4 month old Mario Kart are going to make good enough hostages.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I find it kinda curious that the more there are good things to say about the console, the less discussion there is in this thread.

I'm getting the impression that people here are kinda cynical. For whatever reason.

Let's see what injecting some better news will do:

Capcom just recently announced that Monster Hunter XX is coming to the Switch.

And if Nintendo's stock value recently topping that of the peak they had on the Pokemon GO release wasn't impressive enough, today their stocks closed with a 5.48% growth, driven by the above MHXX announcement.

[Ozyton]

Generations wasn't my favorite of the three I've played, but Monster Hunter was the reason I got a Switch in the first place. I just want to play MH without getting hand cramps and eye strain.

E: As for why we're not discussing it, I don't really have much to say about it because the only thing I'd really play on the Switch are exclusives. My PC runs PC games fine, and I don't travel enough for the portability of the Switch to be useful (though the yearly trips to visit family it would be nice to have). Zelda and Mario Kart are the only two games I really have on it right now. Waiting for Splatoon 2 and now MH, and probably the new Mario game coming at the end of the year. Oh, and if they put gamecube on virtual console I want to get Eternal Darkness.

We still don't know how much the internet access is going to cost, do we?

[IronTomato]

As a Monster Hunter fan, I am very hype. Even if it's never localized I might still get it anyway just to experience the new content and also be able to play on the big screen with a controller that doesn't suck.