Fuck Nintendo to death, after listening to the abominations they committed in the Team Xecuter episode of Darknet Diaries I’m never giving them another cent.
Luckily, Yuzu runs games infinitely better than my switch anyway, so that’s awesome.
Comment on What's up with Epic Games?
MudMan@kbin.social 9 months agoYeah, man, screw Nintendo.
Brand perception is a universal mystery.
Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
pivot_root@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Fuck Nintendo, but fuck Xecuter more.
Anyone that follows the homebrew and CFW scene knows that Xecuter repeatedly and unapologetically ripped off the GPL-licensed components in Atmosphere and its various bootloader stages. On top of violating the licenses of and stealing from the homebrew community, they also added console-bricking DRM to their CFW.
Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
ABSOLUTELY. But the guy whose life they fucked over had almost nothing to do with development. He was like a news site… guy.
pivot_root@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Oh yeah, he was totally the fall guy and had his life ruined over it. He was made an example out of, while the rest and worst of them made bank and got away with it.
MudMan@kbin.social 9 months ago
Oh, there's a ton to say about why Disney get a reputation for being a litigious nightmare but Nintendo gets more of a connection to beloved franchises in a lot of the gaming community, but that's precisely why they're a good counterexample to Steam when you're talking about branding associations.
Zorque@kbin.social 9 months ago
Generally the only games that are de facto exclusive to Nintendo are the ones they make themselves or those that choose to stay on Nintendo (I haven't heard of exclusivity deals, but I won't discount the possibility).
A better comparison might be Sony with Playstation (and maybe Microsoft with Xbox, though I haven't heard of as much from them on that) paying for exclusivity for a limited time.
Epic, on the other hand decided, at least at the start, to buy out almost finished games (some of which even had pre-orders on other storefronts) to have on their platform for at least a year. Then decided to try and play the victim, claiming that they had to do it to gain market share. Then claimed they were morally superior because they didn't charge as much to publishers for putting games on their storefront. While also charging just as much for the games to the consumers.
MudMan@kbin.social 9 months ago
Sony have very, very few straight exclusivity deals these days, they have a super robust first party network. Nintendo and them are very comparable, in fact. Especially in that Nintendo works with more third parties or partially owned "second parties" than you'd think, since people presume anything using their IP is their game, even when it's not.
In any case, they're both as not-comparable, in that Epic games run on the same hardware and platform as Steam games, Linux compatibility aside. You don't have to pay any extra money to switch back and forth.
Epic legitimately hasn't done anything Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft haven't done on the regular. In fact, the current "boo, we hate non-Steam PC launchers" trend overlaps with the old "boo, we're pissed that former console exclusive X is going multiplatform", which was a surreal few years there.
Also, hell yeah, it's morally superior to give more of the money to the dev while charging the same up front to consumers. 100%. Every time. Epic is not doing it because they're nice, they're doing it to attract talent to their platform, which is exactly why you want competition between multiple storefronts instead of a monopoly. But that doesn't take it away from them, that's the better answer.
MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Microsoft don’t pay for timed exclusivity. Instead they buy the companies and get exclusivity from them now being first party.