Microsoft Blocks NESBox Emulator On Xbox One

Quelle surprise.

And rightly so they should block it.

Well it was expected.

Well DUH, what did they expect was going to happen

Well that's a disappointment. UWP Emulators would be my one reason to get an Xbox One; guess I'll just stick to my nVidia Shield TV for now.

Although I'm happy MS are respecting Nintendo, it has really has shown how their publishing system is flawed- would MS have even known that this app was making them liable for legal action if the media hadn't of taken issue with it? And how many more apps have slipped through the net on Xbox- and PS store, and Steam, that are stealing IP or breaking copyright law?

@MrGawain Problem is that emulators are completely legal, there's nothing you can do. Besides, emulators have been around on PCs for ages (on a Windows platform; also Microsoft). Now they're coming to Xbox (well, they failed), everyone has a problem with emulators. If you're okay with emulators on PC, I see no reason to be against them on consoles; It's the same principle.

they should allow an nes emulator but make it an official one from nintendo that accesses the eshop. hell, they ought to to that for mobile fones. nes+snes virtual consoles all around.

@Octane

Personally I'm not okay with emulators, or file sharing sites that allow people to take things for free. I see it as money being taken away from the talented people that make games, music, film, or books. And yes, big business does make lots of money from these things as well, but they employ lots of people with this money. And it shouldn't be an excuse to take these things because they're 'old'. The Mona Lisa is an old piece of art, it's still has a value.

Companies like Microsoft and Steam need to keep a much closer eye on these things, people's livelihood's depend on it.

Well, my HD Super Mario Bros. 3 will remain a Wii U-only thing, then.

Who thought they would allow this?

Just publish it as a game and bundle a couple of public domain ROMs with it.

He's just asking for trouble.

This is total and utter bull from what I can tell, although I'm just skimming articles. From what I've read this emulator has nothing directly built into it that is a violation of any patent laws or copyright, and it doesn't supply any Nintendo games with the download or any such things like that. As far as I'm aware there should be no legal grounds for Microsoft blocking this, and it seems it's simply dictating the law arbitrarily based on what it thinks it best for all the large corporations involved rather than affording this creator the same rights as any other creator on the store. It seems to me like it basically amounts to discrimination in some way—we don't like the cut of your jib so you're not getting on our store, even though you've done absolutely nothing wrong—and unfair business practices.

Seriously, once these giant corporations start getting this dodgy about how they enforce the "law" as they have arbitrarily decided it should be, but not what it actually is, I genuinely want them to fail and be replaced by some new start up that isn't [yet] putting its own agenda above the actual legal rights of the content creators and consumers. I'm talking about replacing companies like Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, etc., and even Nintendo sometimes. It's not in our best interests to allow these corporations to arbitrarily re-write laws that actually exist to protect us in many ways.

This emulator is blatantly not a game; it's an application that allows you to play games (clearly). And Microsoft sneakily wording its submission rules to make it go through a submission process that lets it treat this App[lication] like a game and therefor ban it for not meeting the game submission criteria is extremely questionable and very insidious practice indeed, far more so than any of you corporate justice warriors even imagine emulators are. It's basically Microsoft abusing the terms of service to literally change the actual law that's supposed to protect this kind of creation, and that's a far, far bigger crime than someone making a totally legal and legit emulator that's supposed to be protected under the law.

Every time someone supports a mega-corporation from stopping someone NOT breaking a law, they are effectively aiding these companies in re-writing laws that were created to protect OUR rights in the first place rather than simply serving the ever more controlling and oppressive corporate agenda—and if you don't know why that's a bad thing I'd suggest you should maybe go educate yourself on such matters. . . .

@SLIGEACH_EIRE No they shouldn't. This product is breaking no laws whatsoever from what I have seen and is not infringing anyone's copyright either. It is perfectly legal to create emulators as far as I'm aware. It's only illegal to copy official ROMs. But if the creator of the emulator doesn't create any ROM copies or have anything to do with them, then they aren't violating any laws and are creating a perfectly legal product just like every single other hardware/software creator out there, as far as I'm aware. You really shouldn't just spout out the corporate line like some sheep lackey; it certainly isn't doing any of us consumers and gamers any good whatsoever. So, unless you are a paid Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony employee and are in here to spread the corporate agenda, like some insidious worm, you maybe shouldn't be doing its bidding like a perfect little drone.

its such a shame because my experience with Nesbox had been great, unlike a lot of emulators out there Nesbox had a supporting app called the Nesbox Console for making retro style games and threre are some wonderful homebrew retro games out there. Yes I understand that it would have been used to play roms and such but that is down to the person downloading it and misusing it. It is very easy to run emulators on pretty much anything these days, the real issue is the availability of the roms that companies should deal with. If Rare can clamp down on roms going back to their early Ultimate days then surely it should be a piece of cake for Nintendo to do the same.

Hah, finally....

@kirk

Grow up. These are multi billion dollar corporations that have reputations to maintain.

Just like you claim Microsoft is using "clever wording" to get their way, emulator creators try to be clever.

"Oh here is a product that blatantly advertises its sole existence is to play illegally downloaded roms but because they're not included with the app we're TECHNICALLY not doing anything illegal! Hehehehe! Arent we clever?"

No, you're not. Microsoft wouldn't want the reverse situation on nintendo's consoles. Virtual consoles resell these old games, and making them easier to download free on a competitor's console is DIRECTLY stealing from Nintendo's profits.

I have mixed feelings on this. I know that the majority would use this to play ROMs illegally, but at the same time I have a library of Homebrew ROMs that I enjoy on an Android emulator. While they are not all the best in the world quite a few are enjoyable. Alter Ego, Blade Buster, D-Pad Hero I & II, Tiger Jenny, and few others have been decent ways to kill time while on the road.

@Kirk you sound butthurt.to keep it real if they would have kept it Nintendo would have sued and it might have put a nail in the xbone

Let them sue. Nothing illegal in publishing a NES Emulator.

When you have an emulator of an game, it's definitely fun and exciting to see what you are able to play it on. Having said that bringing console exclusive games to a competitor is absolutely ridiculous. It's an unspoken rule that you don't try to rip games from one console, and provide it on a competitors. If situations like this start happening frequently, I could see emulators being made illegal in the video game world.

@LetsGoRetro This isn't about growing up. You and all the people liking your comment need to wise up. It's irrelevant what you think these emulators are going to be used for. They are legal; it's that simple. You don't get to decide in advance that anyone who uses them is going to immediately decide to break the law and therefor they must be banned from existence, and neither should Microsoft. What Microsoft is doing is the abuse of the law, not the other way around. Whether people then use illegal ROMs on these emulators or not is beside the point; it's not Microsoft's job to pre-determine how someone may or not use a perfectly legal emulator, and it's not your job either. What the hell are people like you . . . some kind of pre-crime experts or something? No, you're just some easily brainwashed corporate lackeys serving the corporate agenda, and eventually you'll wise up enough to realise that's not actually in your best interests in the slightest. God help you when you finally have the sense to realise you're part of the problem (not the problem you think), and just how big a problem there is. Just remember, you're the one that argued for this. . . .

I don't blame MS, I'm sure they don't want the hassle or have bad blood with Nintendo.

Question is: Why is he insisting?

"The dev has also stated that it could still bring the app to Xbox One consoles via a workaround using the Microsoft Edge browser"

Really?

@Slim1999 And you sound like a corporate lackey. Do you work for Microsoft or Nintendo?

Let me answer that: You do, whether you realise it or not. And, whether you realise it or not, that's not actually a good thing in this case.

But give it time . . . and then you'll maybe finally understand the real issue here. . . .

If someone wanted to take Microsoft's backlog of IPs to play on an emulator for Wii U or NX, I would still be against it. I am glad Microsoft did the right thing here. Emulators aren't entitled to everything they want for nothing, regardless of loopholes in the law.

Really?? People defend it because it can play amateurish selfmade 8bit software?

You really want homebrew on your XBox One? Then hack your XBox One to get good modern homebrew, not 30 year old 8bit homebrew.

The NES emulator is for one thing in particular: stealing the good, original, copyright-protected NES games.

Just because law says it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

I also find it amazing how many people seem to believe they are entitled to take someone elses work and property without paying for it. You are entitled to nothing. You should pay for things like everyone else. It's called trade. It keeps people in jobs. So no, sorry guys. Your human rights don't stand when it comes to playing Nintendo games for free.

Iv always seen emulators more as an excuse for piracy tbh. Let's cut the BS here.

Well, the saga continues, I suppose.

@Kirk though there's nothing wrong with emulators and they are perfectly legal, I'd imagine Microsoft is trying to avoid any headaches in defending the UWP program and any repercussions involved by allowing the app through. Even if it didn't hold up in litigation.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised at all if MS blocked the app on the grounds of its name alone, as everyone knows what a NES is regardless of the fact you put 'box' at the end. Especially with mini NES around the corner, may as well err on the side of caution.

@Kirk

Yes i am a pre-crime expert. For example, when i see a book called "How to get away eoth murder" my common sense meter kicks in and goes "Hm, that book is going to teach me how to get away with murder".

NESBox. It is in the title. Nobody is going to play your clever little games about "determining" what a product is for when its both in the title and shows PICTURES of actual nes games.

This is big business. Again, grow up.

Im going to start promoting the link to my page "How to harass NLife user Kirk off the site".

And you BETTER not report me to the admins because you dont know what its about. Stop determining the real usage of my product.

Its also going to show pictures like your username with an x going through it and a boot kicking you away but again, you cant predetermine what it's for.

Oh, by the way, its going to cost you a lot of money. Cool? K.

@MrGawain An emulator is just a program though; an emulator. There's nothing wrong with that, nothing's copyrighted or anything like that. It's the distribution of ROMs that's illegal.

Anyway, I do understand the purpose of emulators. Yes, a game being old isn't an excuse to pirate a game, but emulators keep the systems (and their games) going for longer than the systems and games will be around. Some companies don't release older games on newer systems or PC. Some companies don't even exist anymore. Try to find an obscure NES game, that's not playable on any current system. So yeah, they are important for the preservation of video games.

I actually use my emulator on occasion legally, because I have original copies of SNES cartridges after my SNES broke down so i'll sometimes play the ROM because i own the original making it legal to use actually. Easier sometimes that having yet another system hooked up.

@LetsGoRetro I don't mind the two of you arguing back and forth, but there's no need to get that personal.

Not surprised, can see why they did it. Will Edge be for a JavaScript-based solution?

@LetsGoRetro Edgy. You just graduate middle school? Nah, that'd be too old for that. It might just blow your mind, but just cause you disagree with someone doesn't mean you have to call to arms to attack them off the site. I'm a professional world-renowned douche bag expert and I know a douche when I see one.

@kirk
Pretty sure Microsoft can decide what it wants on its stores. They won't sue or get sued over it because it's not against the law (assuming no BIOS included) but it's Microsoft's store. No store has to include everything that exists. They may have to tweak their rules over time to make it fair for everyone or at least clear, but you can't force them to host and sell an app/game.

@Vincent294 Same goes for you; I don't want to see any personal attacks in this comment section anymore. Thank you.

It would be wrong to play Nintendo games on their rival's console.

@Octane And that's perfectly fine for abandonware, but Nintendo has never abandoned its legacy games and brands, they are still making business with them. The NES is not an abandoned platform, stuff like Atari and Spectrum might be, though, and I understand the concern with historical preservation.

@Kirk This.

Who is surprised by this? Not sure why the devs wasted their time trying to submit this in the first place.

Nintendo: "Your beloved emulator is about to be......BROKEN!"

And with that, this saga is.......OVAH!

Well, looks like someone at Microsoft finally took notice.... I do wonder, though, why is the developer insisting? From where I'm From, No means "No", not "Maybe If you do this...."

@Luna_110 I think he wants to make history.

@Octane Its is a different legal issue for having emulators on consoles. PC isnt owned by anyone, Microsoft, Apple and Linux make operating systems ( Apple make hardware as well) , but they dont own the rights to PC itself. Thats why Emulators end up on them. Its essentially open source. Where as a console its different they have owners, and as such someone is liable if they have something illegal like a rom running on there system. Thats why there never official downloads. Its too much of a legal issue to make it worth while

@LetsGoRetro What, you mean like this:

http://gb.imdb.com/title/tt0058212/

Your pre-conclusion comes because of . . . ignorance. You think a few words tells you the whole story; you assume too much without really knowing anything or bothering to learn anything about that of which you speak.

Again, education. . . .

@aaronsullivan I doubt it's that black & white when it comes to Microsoft basically insidiously re-writing the likes copyright law as it sees fit through sneaky terms-&-conditions wording or whatever. These stores can ban whomever they want, sure (as a general/broad rule), but if they simply ban someone just because they decide they don't like them, with zero just-cause, I'm sure there's a case to be made there. It's not as simple as, "It's my store and the likes of you aren't getting in", or else every racist/sexist/homophobe/whatever in the world could just say "I don't like blacks, women, gays, midgets, cripples, fat people . . . and you're not allowed in here because it's my store and I can let in whomever I choose." Pretty sure the same applies to putting the likes of an App on these App/game stores in general principle: If the company is banning your App/game then I expect it would have to show a legit reason should you bother to challenge that decision in any legal fashion, otherwise it amounts to some form of discrimination against you/your product—hence why Microsoft has went to the trouble of writing all the insidious wording about how an App can now be called a game, when it's absolutely not, and therefore has to pass checks that only games are normally required to pass and not Apps, which Microsoft can now apply arbitrarily when it thinks it serves its own corporate interests above even the law. I'm not sure half the people in here realise that these corporations aren't supposed to be above the law, and they're not supposed to be arbitrarily and insidiously re-writing it either.

Good

@Kirk sounds like you have an Xbox

@yuwarite Why exclusively emulation under UWP? The Wii (and Wii U) both make excellent emulation machines and are much cheaper.

Bringing emulator to a PC is okay as it was an open source platform and apps are usually free to get on there but on console you're in license territory, emulator needs license permission (even if it is legal) to be able to exist on a console. It's similar to Bleem! back in the Dreamcast days. You are going to play PS1 games on Dreamcast, well you could but since all those PS1 games were license by Sony, for every game emulated on that emulator for Dreamcast, you had to pay licensing fee thus you had to sell those games, making them free are out of the question. If this emulator is approved for Xbox One, it would be a shame for Microsoft to see Nintendo coming in to ask for licensing fee due to games being emulated there. Other than the Dreamcast and the Ouya (both which could be easily hack anyways), I don't think I ever seen any third party emulator ever being officially supported on any of the popular main home consoles.

This is very unfortunate to see... well, at least for me. Everyone probably has varied stances on this application.

@Samurai_Goroh There's two sides to the story though. Not all NES games are Nintendo games. They aren't all available on the eShop, so I can understand the need for emulators. I'm not arguing either way, but I can definitely see that both sides have their pros and cons.

"It's not the end for NESBox - the developer plans to resubmit the app for Windows 10, mobile and Hololens..."

So basically it's going to end up as any other emulator then?

Give me a reason why I should stop using FCE Ultra and switch to... whatever this is called again?

from what i gathered they considered it a game and not an app so therefore wanted it to be published as a game and not an app and only failed because the person filed it as an app not a game.

While the emulator is completely legal for them to have it on their system, they did a smart move on doing it as you don't want to make enemies with a competitor as you never know in the future that you may end up doing business together (from both sides).

And them blocking it asap before Nintendo said something (at least that we know of), will so Microsoft in a good light to Nintendo.

@Kirk If nothing else, the name would present legal headaches.

@LetsGoRetro I want that book. Many here would appreciate it

Smart move Microsoft

The only thing surprising about this is that Microsoft did it before Nintendo did.

If reddit is to be believed, they ported it to HTML5 so XB1 users can just use their browser to play NES games:

https://www.reddit.com/r/emulation/comments/52g7e5/nesbox_the_unapproved_xbox_one_nes_emu_now_ported/

@Kirk
It was never a matter of legality. It's a matter of morality.

Since when does anyone think it's ok to approve emulators on a dedicated console? Doesn't have to be illegal to tarnish relations with Nintendo, Sega, and whoever else's platforms were included.

They don't have to use "the law". It's their house, their rules. And they made the right call.

Would I love to have this on my X1 and use with Hololens some day? Absolutely! But that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore rational logic in their decision to not publish. It's just bad business.

@faint I have no modern consoles because I can't afford any.

@Kirk
And by the way, no laws protect "discrimination against product". Race? Sure. Sex? Absolutely. Religion? You bet. But as long as it's not for one of the above reasons, they can refuse whatever they want. And unless the person has evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in fact discrimination against a demographic protected under law, then it'll go nowhere. And "discrimination against products" isn't one of those magic 'protected by law' categories like race or gender.

Law is to protect against real discrimination, not for someone to say "well they didn't accept my product, that's illegal". He, and I, and you, and everyone else knows good and well why it wasn't accepted. And it had nothing to do with race, sex, religion or any other demographic protected by law. It had to do with the product itself, which is where good judgement and common sense rules supreme. They deemed it a bad move on their part so they refused it, and like it or not, there's nothing illegal about that. It was the right call. Mutual respect between platform manufacturers and keeping good publicity mean a lot. Approving this would be a middle finger to Sega, Nintendo and even Sony, since there would be nothing preventing a PSone emulator to be next. They don't want that, and they don't wanna open Pandora's Box either.

@Captain_Gonru Now here's a reasonable guy.

@jimi If Apps that let you play ISOs are legal in and off themselves, which I don't really know if they are or not, and the App itself doesn't come with any copies of actual copyrighted games then I would have zero problem with this. I'm not for corporations arbitrarily re-writing the law to suit their own whims. It would be a bit like someone saying no one should be allowed sell guns at all in America because some people might misuse them and then enacting this re-jigging of the law themselves, even though it's perfectly legal to sell guns. In fact, it's even a constitutionally protected right to bear arms in America. it's not the corporation's job to pre-determine what people will and will not do with these things or enact its own version of the law based on its assumptions. That's when we need to start worrying because at that point these corporations are now acting as though they are above they law, by sneakily twisting the law in very insidious and underhanded ways that most people are totally clueless about.

@TG1 Here's the thing, Nintendo owns the Trademark for Nintendo Entertainment System; I'm not even sure it owns the Trademark for NES. I mean, it probably does, but still, even if it does, I'm sure the creator of NESBox could simply change the name if necessary. I don't think that excuses how Microsoft is sneakily going about twisting the law to suit its own agenda by writing certain terms and conditions that kind of circumvent the law.

@JaxonH That's because you're coming at it as though there is something inherently wrong with emulators, but there's not. Only misuse of emulators to run illegal copies of copyrighted games is wrong. Creating and using emulators in and of themselves is not wrong in the slightest and it is in fact completely legal (as far as I'm aware). There's a group of guys out there still making brand Dreamcast games today, a lot of games, and if there's an emulator that let's people run these totally legal games then no "mortality" has been challenged in any way, shape, or form. The problem is people like you are too quick to just take the corporate line, the one these corporations have now brainwashed into everyone via the pervasiveness of social media and the sheepishness of people on social media, quick to believe and preach whatever these corporations and their media bedfellows tell them, to the point the most people now speak as though they're actually corporate lackeys rather than normal consumers. Fight for the users, not those who would own and control the entire system if they had their way.

@Kirk food it was pulled because if someone did that on a Nintendo console they would pull it to lol.dont be butthurt because you can't play nes games on the xbone lol

@Kirk
Again. I understand they're legal. But let's not pretend that 99% of everyone who uses them, does so to play ROM's. To deny that fact would just be ignorant.

It's not just the corporate line, it's the logical line. People who use logic like you, and say "well it's not illegal therefore it should be allowed" only speak out of selfish desire. You care nothing for the outcome other than what you personally desire, and give no thought whatsoever to the consequences.

I love emulators and I use them on a regular basis. To play ROM's. And I'm not ashamed of that because I buy all my games and if I can't buy a game because it was a Japanese game then I'll play the rom. And yet even I can see the logic in the decision not to allow an NES/SNES/Genesis emulator on an Xbox.

If you can't understand why that's a bad idea then I've got nothing more to say to you. It's like these new generation of kids that think the law is the be all end all of everything, and if it's not legally prohibited then it should be done. Just because something is legal doesn't make it a good idea nor does it make a wise decision.

@JaxonH I've not looked into it but I'm pretty sure there's laws to prevent mega corporations like Microsoft from abusing their power to basically direct the market in a way that is unfair to fair competition or whatever. If you've created a totally legal App and the only reason Microsoft is not letting your App on its store is because it competes with its own Apps or some other mega corporations Apps, but otherwise it's totally within the terms and conditions required to put your App on their store, I think a case could be made there. Like I say, I've not looked into it, but common sense rather than simply drinking the corporate Kook-Aid tells me there's something there. I mean, GAME took a whole bunch of people's souls at one point and now own them till the end of time, just because it decided to add this into the terms & conditions of its service of whatever at one point for a joke, but that doesn't mean everyone now has to give them their souls just because they agree to those terms and conditions without realising that's what they'd done. Companies can be sneaky with manipulating the law (be it for fun or otherwise); that's doesn't automatically make them on the right side of the law.

@Slim1999 Was that sentence supposed to be legible in English?

Not surprised one bit. If Microsoft didn't do it Nintendo would've! Nice thought though to have the whole Nes library on xone! Oh well...maybe one day I can unhook my Nes!

@Kirk
Drinking corporate kool-aid. You're going to have to come up with better argument than that because this has nothing to do with the corporations. I would take the stance even if they allowed it, regardless of what the corporation say, so there's no kool-aid about it. It's common sense.

Legality does not equal wisdom. It's like a restaurant who says you can't come in without shoes- would you argue that they're discriminating against people who don't wear shoes? Would you have the common sense to understand that it's a business and they have the right to impose common sense rules and make judgment calls?

Legality does not equal wisdom. Just because emulators are legal does not mean that it is in Microsoft's interest to go down that road. Thank God people with common sense run these companies and don't just do anything the law allows simply because the law allows it

I'm actually surprised by this turn of events...

I'd say it's probably a better safe than sorry issue since if this goes through, an xbox or 360 emulator on ps or nintendo systems (or other systems on each other period) becomes more or less fair game for people to emulate and I'm sure Microsoft doesn't want that. Kinda like how fan projects based on Ninty games tend to get the plug pulled before a bad one gets released and gets to stay out.

@Kirk While there's nothing technically illegal about it, and emulators do have legal use through independent freeware games, at least 90% of users are using them for playing illegal ROMs, and there's no way of enforcing it short of companies like Microsoft disallowing the emulator itself on their systems.

In any case, this isn't even a legal issue, as Microsoft is perfectly capable of choosing what it allows to be sold on its platforms. Whether or not they could win a legal challenge on the issue, they're smartly not allowing it to become an issue in the first place. There's no reason for them to get stuck with bad PR and wasting time and money challenging Nintendo in court if they can just put a stop to the whole thing here and now.

@DuckyDeer I already have my Wii modded. Will probably get around to modding my Wii U soon. But I have an nVidia Shield TV and it's an excellent box for emulation. PSP, PS1, N64 and below all work very well on it. Many Dreamcast games work very well on it and Dolphin is still quite spotty, but getting better.

@JaxonH That's like saying you would take this stance if the corporations started saying people weren't allowed to draw fan art of things they loved, like Mario, because those things are copyrighted. It's just as legal to create an emulator as fan art, even though both when abused and taken to their extremes can infringe the law, but I don't see you saying fans shouldn't be allowed to draw images of copyrighted characters like Mario or whatever and post them online for others to enjoy and share. So, yes, it is a case of people just taking the corporate line when they claim it's perfectly fair to basically ban these totally legal and totally non-infringing emulators, even though these people are not corporations and should in fact therefore really be taking the side of the consumer and general punter.

@JaxonH And again, I believe it's irrelevant how these emulators are used 90% of the time. This is not a moral debate; it's a legal one. It is not illegal to create or use emulators, just as it's not illegal to create or use fan-made character skins in a game and share them for example (even ones based on popular characters), and therefor the law should be respected and protected when someone creates an emulator just as much as it should if someone creates a character skin and uploads it for others to use (just an example). It matters not that someone might then put illegal ROMs on these emulators, just as it matters not that someone might take that fan art based on a copyrighted character, put it on a t-shirt, and sell it for cash. As a consumers and punter, not a cooperation, I say these emulators, just like fan-created character skins, should not be getting removed from these services unless there's some legit reason beyond the fact that there's the potential for them to be abused. If the service supports these things in the first place, and Microsoft's store does support Apps (and this emulator is simply and App like any other App, be it a weather App, a book App, a movie streaming App, a whatever App), then basically all Apps that fit within the law and within the categories of Apps the store supports should be allowed on there. Removing emulators is the same as if they suddenly banned all user-created character skins for popular games just because they wanted to protect the interests of all these corporations, even when the skins are extremely rough approximations of the original characters—it's insidious, unnecessarily restrictive, and worrying. And, actually, I guess it really is a moral issue too. But it's all about what/whose morals you value and want to protect in this world. Me, "I fight for the users."

The leash ever tightens at the hand of the corporations—in all walks of life—and it looks like it's going to take most people choking to death from it before they finally realise there's an ever-growing and pretty serious problem in our so called "free" society, and that maybe the root of the issue is the person [corporations] controlling the leash and not the glorified slaves pulling on the end of it and just trying to get a little slack and freedom back.

@Kirk Pretty sure MS can decide what they do and don't want on their store, and if you don't like it boycott them. It's not like they're being prejudiced or anti-competitive, they just don't want to enter this gray area. This would allow you to load any ROM, including pirated ones. Sure, it can be used legally, but it's still an unprecedented ability to pirate games on a video game console. They still offer it on PC, Mobile, and even HoloLens. I can see both sides to this argument, but it ain't a crime to go either way.

@Kirk
Sure, it's the same stance as MS is taking, but don't be foolish to think that's the reason I take this stance. I stand on common sense, and if the corporations also stand on common sense then we'll stand together on common sense together. And if they don't, I'll stand opposing them on common sense. But regardless of their stance, I stand on common sense. Whether they coincidentally happen to agree or not is none of my concern.

It was the right call. Understand how to weigh pros and cons.

Pros
-MS makes chump change off one small app

Con
-burns bridge with Nintendo
-burn bridge with Sega
-bad publicity, seen as "endorsing" piracy (whether it's true or not, that will be the perception)

Hmmm, ya those pros are really outweighing the cons. Such a dumb move on their behalf!

@JaxonH And every single one of your pros and cons are all about what's good and bad for the corporation.

You simply do not get it; you don't even realise you are, right now, acting like some kind of corporate lackey. Everything you think and say is from the point of what's good and bad for the corporation—you are a tool for the corporations at this point—and you don't even get that what you should be debating is what's good and bad for the consumers and for the people (because this is ultimately a bigger issue than just how it affects Microsoft/Nintendo and some gamers in this particular case).

I'm literally wasting breath as I type.

@Vincent294 The problem is that it's not really a grey area; emulators in and of themselves are totally legal. The problem is that corporations like Microsoft are dictating the conversation, such that even you are now saying it's a grey area, which is what they want you to start believing and indeed spreading . . . until eventually you and everyone else simply believes it's not even grey but totally illegal . . . and then they've done exactly what they intended from the start. This is precisely how it's done; how laws that were once in our favour are changed to do us no good whatsoever and only serve the corporate agenda, and every just blindly accepts it as though that's how it's always been and it's totally and utterly fair. It's not . . . but it will be too late before you all realise that.

@Kirk
Of course it is- they're the ones making the decision so that's how they're gonna weight it. I'm not making the decision so it doesn't matter what I think or what my knee jerk desires are. It matters what they think.

Like I said before, I love emulators. But I'm not going to allow my own selfish greed to blind me to common sense and wisdom.

Just because I would enjoy the benefit of something out of my own selfish desire, doesn't mean that's what should happen and doesn't mean I'm not going to be considerate of the harm it could cause to other parties. And it doesn't make it the best decision- allowing that emulator would cause more harm to the industry and various parties than good to the super slim minority of consumers who would not use it for ROMs.

I'm literally wasting my breath explaining this.

@JaxonH The eternal flaw here is that you're still outwardly/visibly thinking and acting on behalf of the corporations. You are literally in this comments section doing the job of some corporate lackey and consciously or subconsciously affecting the mindset of everyone else in here too, guiding it towards thinking and acting on behalf of corporations rather than on behalf of the people. And that's where you are doing far more harm for the people than good—and you REALLY should be concerned with what's best for people over what's best for corporations—whether you are able to understand this or not.

Let me try to get you to get it:

https://youtu.be/KMNZXV7jOG0?t=6031 (watch from 1:40:31)

If you think on behalf of the corporations you will see no issue with what happened in that clip because technically these corporations were acting in their own best interests and within the law (although really stretching/abusing it), just like Microsoft above. If you think on behalf of the people you will understand there's such a huge issue with what these corporations did that it's utterly beyond absurd it could ever even have come to this, because it's really not as simple as just doing what keeps the other corporations happy and avoiding any messy business dealings, and it's totally irrelevant that the people responded by breaking the "law" to get back their rights and freedoms, in this case rights and freedoms that really should be theirs by default and basically protected by God almighty from on high.

Now, you may not grasp that what is happening with Microsoft and the people's right(s) to create and distribute perfectly legal emulators is basically the same as the example in the video above, but it is, just in a less obvious way and in the particular area of the gaming/entertainment—but the consequences and outcomes of Microsoft being allowed to bend the law like this to serve its best interests above the people's reaches far beyond just gaming/entertainment. And you serving the corporations, and encouraging everyone in here to think and act similarly, is at the very root of many of the biggest and ever-growing issues in our modern so called "civilised" society. It all leads to the same eventual outcome, which is corporations dictating the law in ways that absolutely are not best for the people—and these corporations are slowly but surely writing and re-writing all law, beyond just gaming/entertainment—instead of the law serving the best interests of the people.

So again, you fight for the corporations—it's there clear as day to see in your very words and actions—and me, "I fight for the users."

But, one more time, I'm literally wasting my breath explaining this.

@Kirk
No. That's a logical fallacy I won't entertain.

It doesn't matter if it's the "corporate view" or not, that doesn't make it wrong, but you seem to think that automatically it's wrong simply because that's the view they take.

I won't entertain such logical fallacies.

And you only care about your self, where as I actually care about everyone and the state of the industry. You couldn't care less if this affected anyone else, but I do.

MS releases emulator, opens door no one can shut. Sony thrn follows suit. 50 million people play ROM's right on their consoles. No one buys NES Mini. It fails. They never make SNES Mini. NOW I'M SUFFERING, AND EVERYONE ELSE.

So don't give me that garbage. This kind of stuff affects everyone in a lot of ways.

@Kirk
And even if I said, "Aww schucks, I was really hoping for this so I could play roms" I still can't blame them for not pissing on Nintendo and Sega's rug.

I'm gonna use your own logic against you- you're just defending piracy and theft. Towing the thieve's line.

"But it's not illegal" you will say.

Neither is denying its approval. You're taking the exact same stance as thieves, crooks and pirates. So therefore you're just pushing their agenda- towing the line for them.

That's exactly what you've been saying to me.

@JaxonH You don't have to entertain it; it's a fact. It's just sad you actively encourage and support such things that are really only in the interests of the corporations, even if you don't really mean to. You throw out what the corporations would have you believe and evangelise is going to happen if they put a totally legal emulator on their device, as opposed to what would actually happen. For example: Emulators haven't destroyed the PC gaming market in the slightest; they've simply given more people a chance to play these classic games—poor people who can't afford new consoles and the $5 it costs per VC title or whatever. And having emulators freely available for decades on PC hasn't killed off Nintendo, Sony, or even Microsoft or stopped them making consoles. These corporations don't like them, because they'd sell the same ancient game to you an infinite amount of times if they could get away with it, but these emulators really only ever done the consumers a service—and you're a consumer, not a corporation.

And your ASSumption about what I care about is exactly that. If you've ever read any of my comments in here, which you have, you should know better. And I don't have Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube pages like this for nothing:

https://www.facebook.com/impurekind/

https://twitter.com/impurekind

https://www.youtube.com/user/impurekind

I'm sure you do really care though . . . in your head . . . and maybe once in a blue moon when you get called out on it like now.

But I expect too much of you.

@Kirk
What you expect is for everyone to share your awkward view, and anyone who doesn't gets blindly labeled and insulted.

I mean, really? You honest to goodness can't understand why they don't approve emulators on consoles? Really?

I use them responsibly but, most don't. And I acknowledge that. They acknowledge that. Almost every person here acknowledges that. And thus understands why this is the logical and right call.

The only who doesn't seem to understand, is you.

@JaxonH I know why they don't support emulators. I'm telling you I don't support that reasoning as a consumer and from a consumer's point of view, and neither should anyone that isn't in bed with the corporations or some corporate lackey.

@JaxonH Denying this emulators approval, especially via the really sneaky and insidious way Microsoft has done it by labelling this blatant App as a "game" just so it doesn't have to approve it like any other App, is bending the law in favour of these corporations. Releasing a ROM is following the law to the letter and not abusing the system in any way, shape, or form. How people then use that emulator is not the emulator, and maybe that's what Microsoft should be possibly checking and managing, as in at least not letting anyone upload any official Nintendo ROMs onto its services and stuff like that. But that's about the extent to which Microsoft should be getting involved, because going further is basically abusing a law put in place to protect such creations, regardless of what anyone on planet Earth thinks of them.

@Kirk
That's where you cross the line though. Telling people how they should think, which is, of course, exactly how you think.

I don't care if you wanna be an activist to see emulators on consoles. I think it's stupid and I'll just hack my consoles to run emulators cause I totally understand why they don't allow them, but if you wanna support it go for it. That's your perogative. But I'm not gotta tell you "this is what you should think- anyone who doesn't actively support theft should take my stance".

But that's exactly what you're doing to me. How bout trying a more "I support this, I don't understand why anyone wouldn't but ok" rather than "I support this therefore you should too and if you don't you're just a corporate slave"

That kind of "my opinion and stance is automatically fact and the only legitimate view, and anyone who disagrees is just a blah blah blah" is lame and weak.

@JaxonH Well, that's like saying I shouldn't tell someone not to kill just because that's how I think. There's right and there's wrong Making an emulator is right, as dictated by our very laws. Bending.twisting the law and terms & conditions in a really sneaky and insidious way just to prevent the release of a perfectly legal and legit emulators is basically wrong—but Microsoft's just been sneaky about how it goes about things so people like you can't see it's wrong. So, yes, I absolutely will tell everyone they're wrong if they argue in Microsoft's favour in this case, because they are wrong from where I'm standing—unless of course they are a corporate lackey. Are you a corporate lackey? Do you work for Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo? It's not my job in life to pussyfoot around your misguided beliefs. In this particular case I'm not here to pander to your fragile ego; I'm here to stop the corporations taking away everything in the world that matters to both me and you, one little bit at a time, while you sit there and actually fight in their corner. But you probably still don't think some silly little emulator being stopped from release on Microsoft's console via sneaky and insidious bending of the law and even Microsoft's own terms & conditions really matters in the grander scheme of things—so I'm wasting my breath.

@Kirk
Denying an emulator on their system, when it's their house and their rules. Is also right. It's also "the law" that any company can run their business however they like. And if they don't want the bad publicity, they can refuse.

That's like saying "it's perfectly legal to walk in front of a speeding car therefore it's right"

It may be legal but it's also stupid and will bring consequences. And it's just as "legal" to not walk in front of a speeding car.

They are excercising their LEGAL RIGHT to not walk in front of this car.

@JaxonH See updated comment above.

You're too blinded by the corporate Kool-Aid to see the difference between absolutely following the law, as the guys making the emulator have done, and insidiously bending both the law and even Microsoft's own Terms & Conditions as Microsoft has done here to basically not follow that law as it was designed and intended to protect such creations.

Again, the guys making the emulator aren't illegally copying games or whatever; they're just releasing a perfectly legal emulator. Microsoft, however, is sneakily and insidiously bending the law to stop something that should have every right to be on the store just like every single other App it has approved.

One is the kind of sneaky stuff lawyers pull off every day to manipulate the system and the people the system is supposed to serve, and the other is a group of people trying to create something cool and share it with others. Who the hell cares, as a consumer and not a corporation, if it means we can then get to play great Nintendo games for free IF we ourselves choose to abuse the law in order to do so. If you don't want to abuse the law, don't—the product itself won't break any laws or play any illegal games in the slightest if you don't choose to. But Microsoft is abusing the law, and in that none of us have any choice, power, control, or say whatsoever.

But you just can't see it, because . . .

@Kirk
Blinded
Kool aid
Insidious

Dude, if you can't debate your point without using lame crutch accusations as these, you have no argument.

None.

You're too blinded by the kool aid of your own selfish desires to give any thought to right or wrong, hiding behind the law to ease your conscience.

It's legal to cheat on your wife. Guess that makes right to do it! And if you don't cheat on your wife, seeing as it's legal and anything legal is now "right" you're just an insidious douchebag

Wow, I love this kind of faulty logic. You can insult anyone for anything!

@JaxonH Hey, if the shoe fits I'll help you put it on.

I think we both know the real truth here, but you keep sipping away. . . .

Maybe one day you'll "fight for the users" instead of your corporate masters.

@Kirk
And you're gulping selfish, twisted thinking by the gallon while burying your head in the sand to all common sense, hypocritically hoisting the law as your moral compass when it works for you, and completely disregarding it when it doesn't.

"We" know nothing. I know common sense. You know nothing but your own selfishness, and insults to any who won't entertain your foolishness.

You can keep those clown shoes on your own feet, where they belong

"fight for the users" instead of your corporate masters

At what cost? Robin Hood fought for the users too- by robbing and stealing and pillaging. But that's perfectly ok with you- the hell with the consequences, as long as you benefit

@Kirk
And a final note. You're fighting for the abusers under the guise of fighting for the users. Think about that.

As for myself, I'm not "fighting" for anyone or anything. I'm just remarking on the situation. I don't really care how it pans out. In your desperate attempt to insult me enough that I actually change my mind (a tactic that's never worked for anyone mind you) I've played devils advocate. But I don't take any sides. I don't "fight" for anyone. Not for them, and certainly not for you.

@JaxonH Blah, blah, blah. You've done Microsoft proud today.

Someone submitted a totally legal App that initially passed certification for release on Xbox One even under Microsoft's own App submission term & conditions:

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/09/xbox_one_nes_emulator_passes_certification_could_hit_console_in_the_next_few_days

But because Microsoft arbitrarily decided it still didn't want this particular App on its store, even though it already passed all the requirements to be on there and is indeed entirely legal, it decided to just go in and lie about the App being something else (a game in this case) so it could apply a different set of rules entirely that would allow it to now discriminate* between/against and prevent the App from being released.

And you think the totally legal emulator is the problem here and the thing we should be concerned with/about.

PS. There's little more I can say on this point, I'm wasting precious air, so from my side this back and forth is now over.

*For the record: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/discriminate and http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/discrimination The use of the word "discriminate" or "discrimination" is not only assigned to thing likes of people and sex, race, or religion.

@Kirk
If I've done MS proud for simply saying I understand their view, then you've done thieve's, murderers and criminals proud today by actively fighting for theirs.

Keep arguing with the entire world about how "wrong" this is. Just don't argue with me cause I'm so beyond caring to hear it anymore.

@Kirk
Oh,

And blah blah blah. I can act 3 years old too.

If only you could experience the frustration of trying to have a mature discussion exchanging views while the other person acts like a toddler.

I choose to take my discussions back to the grown ups table, rather than strapping on this bib with you throwing food at each other. I've stooped to your level enough- even once was too many times. And I feel dirty and ashamed returning your actions in kind. But no more.

@Kirk "totally legal emulator"

Again, the naming alone of this emulator is more of an issue than you might realize. Microsoft was well within the law to deny a product called NESBox, which almost certainly would be destined to fall under legal challenge by Nintendo.

Naming aside, they are within their right regardless, but I'm not interested in discussing that here. Blame the developer for the disingenuous name if you're going to assign blame to someone.

@TG1 Nintendo owns the Trademark for NES; it does not own the Trademark for Nesbox as one word, and I don't think these homebrew guys are even trying to claim any Nesbox Trademark anyway or even sell the product (Isn't it a free App?). I think it would be another abuse of the law if Nintendo claimed copyright on the name just because it starts with the same three letters as its own console, just like my main point in all my posts above, even as more obvious a nod as it is in this case.

To me it's just like when Bethesda tried to claim all ownership and use of the "scrolls" word in any game titles and basically lost.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/03/16/bethesda-and-mojang-settle-scrolls-lawsuit/#56e40b8652d4

Or when King tried to claim any and all use of the word "saga" in any game titles and basically lost:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/17/5624980/king-settles-trademark-disputes-with-the-banner-saga-developer

Nintendo doesn't own every single use of "nes" in all games and entertainment products.

And, yeah, clearly it's a bit more of a clear case of using the name with Nesbox—although still not a home run—but you shouldn't be arguing in favour of these corporations regardless, unless you're some kind of corporate lackey. We really should only argue for them when it's a total black & white case and a clear and deliberate violation of the law that's actually intended to profit from abusing the original Trademark, not what Nintendo might like us all to believe is the law and what you think must be the law because that's what these corporations have now got everyone believing is the case and telling everyone else is the case too.

Seriously, did Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony go out and pay you all at some point to act as their corporate minions?

PS. From personal experience I can tell you that "settles" often just means these mega corporations basically lost but came to some "agreement" so as to save face, put up a strong front, and maybe get the other side to agree to at least some conditions that serve both parties, which only happens because the other side decides it's really not worth the hassle at that point and they just want these corporate worms to go away and stop wasting their time:

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/games-firm-boss-in-legal-battle-with-bullying-warner-bros-over-business-name-1-2590283

@Kirk I'm not arguing in favor of a corporation Kirk, and frankly don't appreciate your assumption that I'm a "corporate lackey". I'm just pointing out a fairly obvious observation. While I appreciate your comparisons, they aren't apt in this case. You are free to your own opinions naturally. I respectfully disagree and err on the side of the law, as likely Microsoft is as well. Disingenuous releases like NESBox (no matter the field of entertainment) are well documented for getting into legal trouble.

@TG1 You don't have to know/realise you're arguing in favour of the corporations to be arguing in favour of the corporations.

And it's called Nesbox, not NESBox.

http://nesbox.com/console/

All these little details are actually important—ask any lawyer—and it's media sites getting even the basics wrong, inadvertently twisting the story just a little bit in one particular direction, that starts swinging the situation in the favour of the corporations. The poor corporation gets painted as the victim and the emulator creator as the bad guy more and more with each little innocent mistake like this—and then the sheep jump on board and throw in their ten cents worth too.

@Kirk Perhaps that is true. In my case though (and several others in this thread) it''s demonstrably not the case. Simply pointing out the law (and surrounding complexities) is clearly not the same as "arguing in favour of the corporations." I genuinely hope you can come to that realization; at the very least it'll help make your arguments more focused.

@TG1 Pointing out the law from the perspective of the corporations.

The law from the perspective of the Nesbox developer is that his emulator's name does not infringe any Trademark and his emulator is completely legal.

So, I'll point out the law from the perspective of that side of the equation, thanks, because I come at things from the perspective of a consumer and not a corporation.

@Kirk "Pointing out the law from the perspective of the corporations."

No.

@TG1 Yes.

Here's the law: It's perfectly legal to make and distribute emulators and the Nesbox name violates no Trademarks. A lawyer would have to go to court and prove otherwise for me to say otherwise, and I don't believe they'd succeed.

See the difference between your law, as looked at from the point of view of a corporation, and my law as looked at from the point of view of someone who doesn't think like and speak for the corporations?

@Kirk I'm starting to see difference, yes. Your "law" is a narrow, and (seemingly) uninformed interpretation. I have no personal law myself, other than the laws I've dealt with as years as a paralegal.

It doesn't look like we'll come to any common ground though, so let's please end and avoid the risk of further insults and the like.

@TG1 Well, there you go. . . .

And I wonder what kind of law you'd like to practice one day. . . .

I wonder if you'd like to be a corporate lawyer. . . .

@Kirk Most likely none. The enthusiasm I had for law when I was fresh out of college has waned over the years.

@TG1 Then you may have just saved your soul.

@TG1 You've requested a reply, so I'll give you one, but I don't have the means to contact you privately, so it will have to be public. Are you happy for me to go ahead with that here?

@gcunit Sorry, I guess don't follow. I have a working email attached to my account. Is it just not visible to you?

I any case, It seems I've learned all I need to know. A reply at this point is evidently of little if any value.

@TG1 That's right, I can't see your email address.

@Kirk butt hurt you are

@Kirk if that was true why did Xbox block it lol.that's right your wrong and Nintendo would have sued them which Xbox dont want that..lol

@Octane What was personal?

@Kirk well....... VR really took off didn’t it

@KingSandyRavage So far it's doing great. And every major headset manufacturer is releasing and/or working on next generation headsets as I type, from the Vive Pro to Oculus Go and then Santa Cruz coming in 2019-ish. So everything is going pretty much as expected.

@impurekind no it isn't haha. Just bought PSVR for Resident Evil 4and....... that is all that's on PS4 haha. unusable by gamers under 12. it is more of a fad and gimmick than a dance mat

@KingSandyRavage Okily dokily.

And, as just one example and suggestion, maybe you could try looking up some of the reviews for WipEout's VR mode.....

Here, I'll even help you: WipEout PSVR reviews

@impurekind in what world do you live where VR has taken off as a viable gaming platform? it's rubbish and failed already

@KingSandyRavage Well, I live in the real world. What world do you live in?

And, I could try and teach you about the adoption rates of all the other massively successful and pretty much all now ubiquitous technologies out there (radio, TV, mobile phones, smartphones, the Internet, tablets, videogame consoles, electricity, etc*) and show you how VR is on a perfectly healthy adoption curve at this point in time for a brand new technology platform--but I'd be wasting breath. But, just for the hell of it, here's a little graph at least:

https://simplecore.intel.com/itpeernetwork/wp-content/uploads/sites/38/2017/05/adoption-rate-chart.png

@impurekind graph? Haha. Heck store shelves and the amount of people not using them. And then the high turn over of units in trade in stores. The zero number of AAA titles being developed for it. It’s a gimmick and it’s failing

@KingSandyRavage The fact you don't know you're totally and utterly wrong is what makes this all so funny/sad.

@impurekind I’m totally and utterly wrong? Hahahahaha sorry, I didn’t realise you were the infalible, world renowned authority on virtual reality hahahaha

Virtual Reality is, was and always will be a gimmick and fad interface for video games. It has far better and more far reaching applications in medical and therapeutic scenrios. Offering experiences to people that would otherwise not be able to experience those things has immeasurable benefits and pretty much what virtual reality was invented for.

Applying it to video games has never taken off and repeatedly failed and for a good reason; it’s the wrong mesh of technologies.

Point in case: Resident Evil 7

Great game, awful in VR. Visuals become heavily pixelated, blurred and the overall experience is worsened. Same for Doom; another great game experience, lessened by the application of VR.

Playstation worlds however is a great piece of software that shows what VR is for, in particular the Descent section. This however is not a video game.

Video games will never be applied to VR as VR is intended for very short bursts as it is damaging to the eyes and senses overall, such as commonly cause nausea.

As an experience (gimmick) it is awesome and recommended as something everyone should try. As a £260 peripheral intended for playing video games; it is awful and will continuously fail as it just isn’t the right tech for the job. Augmented Reality however has far more future potential in video games and 3D graphic design, in my opinion.

@KingSandyRavage Your ignorance astounds me. But I don't really have to worry/bother too much: Time will set all things straight in the end--and then you'll stop talking such complete and utter junk.

@impurekind you’re argument is that you have blind faith and trust in a product that is totally wrong just because you want it so bad but cannot accept the mass market has figured out its crap already? Haha

Did you grow up in love with Tron and the Lawnmower Man, praying one day that your dreams would all come true? Haha

@KingSandyRavage Tron and Lawnmower Man were/are awesome, and my dreams are coming true:

https://inceptionalnews.wordpress.com/godspeaking/

In time you will see just how dumb your ignorant you are being about VR (and I'm talking about in relation to games specifically here). . . .

@impurekind tron and lawnmower man are awesome???? ...... oh dear hahahahahaha

That is rather tiny headed nail I just absolutely smashed with a correct hammer. Unfortunately 25-50 year olds that love lawnmower man and long to live in a virtual world probably constitute for less than 0.5% of the gaming community and that’s being generous.

By all means, love it, invest it and fill your boots with it. But it will die and wane just as PlayStation Move did and all other video gimmick interfaces.

I own PSVR and warrant it’s “experience” delivery. But for video games? It’s a dead end platform for a multitude of reasons. Fact. Sorry to stand on your dreams. But you are just flat out wrong and ignorant of your own ignorance.

@KingSandyRavage Dude, you just showed how ignorant you are: PlayStation Move is still going strong today, and it's because of VR no less--it never died! It's literally been around and supported for 8 years at this point (longer than most console cycles), it's going stronger today than ever, and had already sold over 12 million units by 2012 (which means it's clearly sold quite a bit more than that in total). Your definition of something "dying" is totally broken. Move is nowhere near dead, and you should know this as someone who apparently owns a PSVR. If you're applying that same kind of broken logic to VR in general . . .

To be very clear, however, I don't expect Move (as we know it today) to be a thing for too much longer, but I do expect motion controllers in some form, certainly in conjunction with VR (and AR to a degree too), to be around for a long, long time to come.

@impurekind wow you’re ignorant. And also have no concept of what the word means.

It is dead. The % of games that’s successful implement Move is a vast minority of games released, and for good reason. It’s crap and a gimmick.

The best VR experiences don’t require and handheld control and produce and experience.

The next iteration on from WiiMove with VR in mind should have been gloves, not a WiiMove+ that they are proposing in releasing.

You clearly blindly love VR and would back it even it your eyes bled.

Speaking as a professional electronics and software engineer I can look at it technical and objective viewpoint. Looking at is as a gamer I can look at it objectively and for the interaction and experience it offers.

As a VR fanboy, you can look at it with your beer goggles and bang your drum as much as you want, your only convincing yourself. On the whole, as a gaming interface, in its current form; it’s crap.

In 10 years time, maybe graphic engines will improve to prevent the extensive motion blur that occurs.

In 10 years time, maybe the gaming controller will offer an actual level of immersive interaction.

Today and for the next 5 years? It’s bit worth the money, or the level and volume of software being developed or sirrebtky being developed.

It is also bad for your eyes. Fact.

It is severely in its infancy, should be handled sparingly and carefully and still need a LOT of heavy investment and development. Using it for 10 minutes bursts of immersive experiences is well worth the gimmick and new form of interaction it brings. Playing 2-3 hours of Doom or Skyrim? Absolute 100% waste time and utter fail.

@KingSandyRavage There's a whole load of clueless gibberish going on in what you just wrote.

@impurekind what an insightful third person quote that was from you there. To refer to all your own ramblings as gibberish and clueless. I commend you.

It’s almost painful listening to you talk about VR, if it wasn’t so sad. You have my sympathy and pity.

I hope one day you get an education and develop half an idea about what you are talking about. Or, let your VE infatuation run wild and literally disappear into a (poor quality version of a) machine, where I think you’d be happier and more than likely safer.

God bless and god speed little man.

@KingSandyRavage Let's chat again in a few years when you start to realise just how ignorant and short sighted you have been. . . .

@impurekind this conversation started about 2-3 years ago and it’s no further forward. I fact this being discussed less now than it was then.

Or do you mean wait yet another 2-3 years so you can hang onto your failing dream a little while longer.

Only ignorance here, is sitting right in your corner dude.

@KingSandyRavage I'm currently reading a book called "How to Win Friends and Influence People"--I'd highly recommend it to pretty much everyone in today's society--and given what it's about, I really should know better than to continue arguing with you and insulting you for what you believe,. So let's both stop wasting our life's arguing about this topic and trying to make ourselves feel important and heard, and maybe we can simply agree to disagree (this is a huge goodwill gesture for me).

Now, I hear you: You don't seem to hold VR in high regard, at least not in its current form, and you certainly don't think it has true long-term merit/value when it comes to gaming. And, regardless of my personal thoughts/views that are contrary to yours on most points, I can live with you having those views.

Personally--and this is how I specifically see things; you don't have to agree--I'm going to continue to enjoy VR (I've played some great games and had some truly amazing experiences already) and look forward to the very bright future of this exciting new technology/platform and all the awesome games and experiences inevitably coming to it down the line. . . .

Enjoy the rest of your evening.