It’s with Nintendo’s “homegrown” emulation being worse than emulators developed by other people—which is rightfully fucked up.
This is always the case. Any one entity cannot compete against the whole world. If they try, they will get burned out like crazy. And if they don't, there will always be rough edges in the product that they can offer to customers.
Note that it's only pirates that can avoid this problem. Pirates are doing this with "mere aggregationi" by choosing any product available in the market. It's completely different situation when you have implemented the product from scratch yourself and have invested time and money to get the features done. Dropping existing features when you have money invested in the product isn't what you normally do. But pirates can (and do) reject large number of products (just like ordinary users do). This rejection pattern isn't available if you create the product yourself.
there's no chance it will happen when the supposed reason for your utility software is to allow others to create.
Target market for the software (for creating new stuff) is children smaller than high school level, so I don't really expect the target group participants care much about which license I offer the material. Basically the license issues and free software and all the riaa/mpaa horror comes afterwards.
I used to have my work available for free with permissible licenses, but sadly internet misuses the trust that I can provide. When they misuse the github availability of the software source code, these miuses cause them to lose ability to see the github repo. And since they were not careful enough to limit their misuse to reasonable area, the world lost permissible license too. It took a while to get content inserted by Stallman removed from the project, but the end result more accurately reflects the current reality in the internet.
Basically when internet misuses the provided features, they're going to lose access to them.
No. All my information comes from reading other people's experiences/riaa-related-paperwork with suing pirates... But you can't be a master of content creation, if you don't have an option to sue pirates.
you consistently demonstrate a goldfish's understanding of how things work.
You simply have no idea how much effort it takes to get a virtual goldfish to behave correctly in 3d modelling world. Goldfish are actually pretty smart and simulating the behavior with software is more tricky than you think. If you put a goldfish to a torus, and let it swim endlessly forward, you'll get a nice demo effect from 1990s.
if you only made $6, how can you prove in a court of law that people are pirating your work?
If someone actually pirated my work, proving it for a court is very trivial operation. You can do it in many ways:
1) file names
2) screen shots
3) videos of animations
4) script format
5) displayed logos/progressbars
6) distributed zip files
etc. tons of different ways to prove copyright infringement.
The $6 money amount is not an issue, it can even be used to prove damages of their piracy operation.
It's known fact that settlements are bringing in like 100 times more money than actually licensing copyrighted works to actual clients.
They're emulating N64 hardware on a Switch, and they designed and built both fucking systems, along with the games. What can't they do?
Once they have some piece of code available, they simply cannot switch to another code piece that does the exact same functionality. Basically only never-ending software development projects are swapping the dependencies in middle of development cycle. Once the dependency (to emulation software or games or whatever) exists, swapping it to something more robust isn't any longer possible.
People who create actual products have this kind of limitations -- they cannot throw away the whole project without killing their own market, and they cannot keep invested work amount without staying on a failure train long after clients have declared it unsuccessful and fleed from the market.
It just depends on how much work was invested to the product that determines how long your need to stay within product that is no longer cool. Every project meets this end at some point, end users gets frustrated with quirks of the product very quickly, and familiar products are always declared boring or not interesting. Even after this happens, the products still need to be maintained and kept available until the developers of next product line will appear. The time how long unsuccessful products need to be maintained is longer than you expect. You think it just disappears when the cool factor is no longer available, but this isn't the case.
I'm sure nintendo has this exact problem with the games that was built in 1980s. in 1990s they lost the coolness of the product. And now when market starts to think the product might again has a chance of next wave of success, the pirates have already filled the market with illegal copies of the previous wave of success story. New children who have not seen the 1980s product might still accept the old software, even if it looks lower quality. But sadly pirates already filled the market with bootleg copies. So they simply have no other choice than send DMCA notices to the emulator/rom sites and hope they disappear before next wave of children will get access to the old nintendo games.
Nintendo cannot do proper emulation of their own work, simply because it would require them to move to a product different from what they have available. Pirates can jump from one product to another, but respectable companies cannot do that. Once they create the product, the invested work amount (to that product) is large enough that throwing away all that work is not an option. Failure is not an option.(check this quote from nasa) They need to succeed, even though criminals are using the same digital assets and software code.
That's the price of success. Pirates will use your work in ways that kills your business. This is why all businesses need to invest significant amount of money building copy-protection schemes. Bundling your software with the hardware is the ultimate copy-protection scheme, since end users cannot avoid purchasing the hardware. But bunding software with hardware means that you need to cover the cost of software development from the money you are able to extract from the market by selling hardware. So your hardware product will be more expensive than what competitors can do.
You're seriously extremely deluded if you think everybody in Europe or everyone who has a smartphone is going to want to download your software.
They don't need to download it, when the software is included with the same package where they got their hardware from. It's called "a list user interface component". Someone had to build it or else you wouldn't be using phones at all. That someone just happens to be me.
Oh, I forgot this part:
7) then there's 850 million copies of it available on the planet earth
8) when there's one pixel broken in it, 850 million times that small error will cause problems to real humans
9) fixing the bug once it's distributed to all the people means duplicating the work 150 million times
10) so better stay within the deadline (that was 10 years ago)...
11) so deadlines are pretty important where I come from.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
This very same thread has proof available that at least one end user downloaded the product.
So there's at least one customer to worry about, so your statement is just broken.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
This is always the case. Any one entity cannot compete against the whole world. If they try, they will get burned out like crazy. And if they don't, there will always be rough edges in the product that they can offer to customers.
Note that it's only pirates that can avoid this problem. Pirates are doing this with "mere aggregationi" by choosing any product available in the market. It's completely different situation when you have implemented the product from scratch yourself and have invested time and money to get the features done. Dropping existing features when you have money invested in the product isn't what you normally do. But pirates can (and do) reject large number of products (just like ordinary users do). This rejection pattern isn't available if you create the product yourself.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Target market for the software (for creating new stuff) is children smaller than high school level, so I don't really expect the target group participants care much about which license I offer the material. Basically the license issues and free software and all the riaa/mpaa horror comes afterwards.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I used to have my work available for free with permissible licenses, but sadly internet misuses the trust that I can provide. When they misuse the github availability of the software source code, these miuses cause them to lose ability to see the github repo. And since they were not careful enough to limit their misuse to reasonable area, the world lost permissible license too. It took a while to get content inserted by Stallman removed from the project, but the end result more accurately reflects the current reality in the internet.
Basically when internet misuses the provided features, they're going to lose access to them.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Marketing budget does not have anything to do with how successful the product is among customers.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having an "option" to sue is always a good thing. It remains to be seen if its ever necessary to use that option.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're probably using millions of dollars for marketing their product to real customers. My marketing budget is a little bit smaller than that.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re:
Why would original authors of some technology need to support people who fails to properly license the software that they're using?
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
too bad it's not actually ericsson...
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. All my information comes from reading other people's experiences/riaa-related-paperwork with suing pirates... But you can't be a master of content creation, if you don't have an option to sue pirates.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You simply have no idea how much effort it takes to get a virtual goldfish to behave correctly in 3d modelling world. Goldfish are actually pretty smart and simulating the behavior with software is more tricky than you think. If you put a goldfish to a torus, and let it swim endlessly forward, you'll get a nice demo effect from 1990s.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If someone actually pirated my work, proving it for a court is very trivial operation. You can do it in many ways:
1) file names
2) screen shots
3) videos of animations
4) script format
5) displayed logos/progressbars
6) distributed zip files
etc. tons of different ways to prove copyright infringement.
The $6 money amount is not an issue, it can even be used to prove damages of their piracy operation.
It's known fact that settlements are bringing in like 100 times more money than actually licensing copyrighted works to actual clients.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once they have some piece of code available, they simply cannot switch to another code piece that does the exact same functionality. Basically only never-ending software development projects are swapping the dependencies in middle of development cycle. Once the dependency (to emulation software or games or whatever) exists, swapping it to something more robust isn't any longer possible.
People who create actual products have this kind of limitations -- they cannot throw away the whole project without killing their own market, and they cannot keep invested work amount without staying on a failure train long after clients have declared it unsuccessful and fleed from the market.
It just depends on how much work was invested to the product that determines how long your need to stay within product that is no longer cool. Every project meets this end at some point, end users gets frustrated with quirks of the product very quickly, and familiar products are always declared boring or not interesting. Even after this happens, the products still need to be maintained and kept available until the developers of next product line will appear. The time how long unsuccessful products need to be maintained is longer than you expect. You think it just disappears when the cool factor is no longer available, but this isn't the case.
I'm sure nintendo has this exact problem with the games that was built in 1980s. in 1990s they lost the coolness of the product. And now when market starts to think the product might again has a chance of next wave of success, the pirates have already filled the market with illegal copies of the previous wave of success story. New children who have not seen the 1980s product might still accept the old software, even if it looks lower quality. But sadly pirates already filled the market with bootleg copies. So they simply have no other choice than send DMCA notices to the emulator/rom sites and hope they disappear before next wave of children will get access to the old nintendo games.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nintendo cannot do proper emulation of their own work, simply because it would require them to move to a product different from what they have available. Pirates can jump from one product to another, but respectable companies cannot do that. Once they create the product, the invested work amount (to that product) is large enough that throwing away all that work is not an option. Failure is not an option.(check this quote from nasa) They need to succeed, even though criminals are using the same digital assets and software code.
That's the price of success. Pirates will use your work in ways that kills your business. This is why all businesses need to invest significant amount of money building copy-protection schemes. Bundling your software with the hardware is the ultimate copy-protection scheme, since end users cannot avoid purchasing the hardware. But bunding software with hardware means that you need to cover the cost of software development from the money you are able to extract from the market by selling hardware. So your hardware product will be more expensive than what competitors can do.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We just did it before google got their operation up and running.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They don't need to download it, when the software is included with the same package where they got their hardware from. It's called "a list user interface component". Someone had to build it or else you wouldn't be using phones at all. That someone just happens to be me.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. It's called planet earth. More specifically, european market for digital products called phones.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I still have option to sue the pirates. You left out that option.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, all the money I received for it, came during first 30 days of operation.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I forgot this part:
7) then there's 850 million copies of it available on the planet earth
8) when there's one pixel broken in it, 850 million times that small error will cause problems to real humans
9) fixing the bug once it's distributed to all the people means duplicating the work 150 million times
10) so better stay within the deadline (that was 10 years ago)...
11) so deadlines are pretty important where I come from.
Next >>