dleec8

This is what happens when greed drives decision making when it comes to releasing games. Its obvious that the MK Legacy Collection was not in its finished state, but Warner Brothers cares more about releasing an unfinished MK game right before Halloween to get those extra sales as opposed to letting Digital Eclipse finish and polish the game before release. This is the same reason why the Switch version of MK1 was so shoddy and unpolished at launch - Because WB wanted the game released right away and the developers had little time to polish the Switch version. Greed is the enemy of good game design and greed comes from the top.

Switch 2 upgrade + adding rollback netcode is what Bandai Namco needs to do if they want to do the right thing by Nintendo fans.

Love flight sims, love Ace Combat, love old flight sims, love Top Gun = I am buying this when I get home from work today.

By any chance: Does anybody remember the huge flight sim arcade machine that used to be in arcades in the mid 90s? The one where you climbed into a cockpit and were surrounded with flight displays and gadgets and it looked like a real cockpit? I loved playing that when I was a kid and I wonder if this game is the same game as that arcade game.

I got my preorder for the console bundle in over here in California. The pre-orders were supposed to go live 9PM my time, so I was on the Wal Mart pre-order page and was refreshing it over and over starting at around 8:50. At around 8:56, I refreshed it and it said I was being placed in line to add to cart and the wait would be 10 minutes long. After 10 minutes, I was able to add the console bundle to cart and I completed the pre-order with no issues.

I then realized I should probably buy accessories too, so I added the camera, traveling case, the new pro controller, and the Street Fighter 6 amiibos (I am a huge fighting game and Street Fighter fan) to my cart and got those pre-ordered as well.

Can't wait to dive into Mario Kart, Donkey Kong, and Street Fighter 6 at launch!

I was playing online this weekend. Looks like most people are playing on the US East servers, so check that one out if your home server doesn't have a lot of players. We need more players online! The floor system only works well when people are playing online! So please, if you enjoy GGST, play online! I will see you in the tower!

Great review. I have had my eye on this one for a while, but I had no idea back than that this would be coming out right after the release of the already legendary MvC Collection. Between playing MvC on Switch, and SF6 on PC, I am already maxing out my gaming time playing fighters. But this game looks good and I want to support eventually. Maybe I will break and pick it up this week because I really want to support a new 2D fighter when its clear so much love and care was put into its development (by basically one person no less).

Full stop: If you are a fighting game fan and want to play fighting games on the Switch (especially online), and you want/prefer to use a pad, then the Fighting Commander is the best pad available on Switch.

I have owned this for the Switch for about 5 years and put in a ton of hours on mine playing fighting games such as Ultra Street Fighter 2, SF30th Collection, MK11, MK1, Capcom Fighting Collection, and now MvC Collection. It still works just fine after 5 years pretty heavy usage. I love the big face buttons on the front of the controller as they make hitting the right button very easy. The big D pad is actually a HUGE plus for me because the pad is big and you are less likely to get a wrong direction. I prefer this style over a rolling one because each direction feels distinct to press.

I moved on from pad to the HORI RAP V fight stick for the Switch, but any pad lovers will love this pad. I still go back to it once in a while just for fun, but it is definitely the best fight pad you can buy on the Switch (I have tried two others and the Fighting Commander is still the best to me).

I am just here to say this: If you have ANY INTEREST AT ALL in playing these games with other people online, PLEASE PLAY ONLINE AT LAUNCH.

Everybody will be online this upcoming weekend, both experts and complete beginners. This is everyone's chance to to learn these games together and build a big player base for the future. Lets play these games together, learn together, and grow the Nintendo fighting game community by supporting this release and playing online matches! People think Nintendo gamers don't play fighting games but there are a ton of us out there!

@Vyacheslav333 I wonder if this is a glitch of some sort or they wanted to up the difficulty for arcade mode? Strange thing to change for a retro release! Mr. Karate smoked me in my only attempt so I need to go for some rematches today lol.

@Vyacheslav333 I noticed that yesterday when I finally got the end game boss (Mr. Karate) and I was pressing the continue button after he destroyed me and the button press wasn't doing anything. I immediately thought of Alpha 3 Final Boss M. Bison (who you also could not continue against). Thanks for confirming my suspicions!

@SillyG As a fighting game junkie, I don't want them changing too much about the game other than giving us quality of life upgrades, which we got with the expanded training mode and some fixes to common glitches and bugs from back in the day. The thing I really needed was smooth rollback netcode and smooth online play, which this delivers nicely. I was playing yesterday and there were a ton of matches going and the connections were good. That is all I can ask for.

Note for fighting games fans who like to play online: GET THIS GAME NOW.

Not as a surprise, but to get the most online enjoyment out of these releases you need to be playing right away at launch. I was playing yesterday and there were a ton of lobbies and matches going online, so it was a lot of fun to learn the game a bit in practice and in solo arcade mode and then jump online and start slugging it out. This game is a ton of fun if you are a fighting game fan and will scratch that 2D fighting itch until the Marvel vs Capcom collection comes out.

There were some really good players online yesterday, many players just barely learning the game, and a lot of in between. So if you are interested in playing SvC Chaos with others and learning the game with us, then get the game NOW and I will see you online! Shoryuken!

The game is actually playable now and what I would consider "decent enough" for what MK1 is and what the Switch can handle. The most recent patch fixed the terribly long load times and the performance of the game pretty much matches what MK11 offered. Is it going to run and perform like the PS5 version? Of course not. Is it now playable and decent enough for those who want MK on the Switch? Yes.

For all those who don't know, the game is now up to MK11's level in terms of playability and performance. Will that stop people who don't own the game from commenting on it like its still in its launch state? No.

I started playing as soon as it became available at 9pm pacific time here in California and just now logged off half past midnight. After playing a ton of Splatoon 1 and 2, I knew I was gonna pick up Splatoon 3 day 1, but I like others was wondering if they added enough to make this game feel fresh.

I can 100% say that Nintendo changed up the formula just enough with new weapons and tweaks to the core game play, combined with new additions like the table top turfwars and additions to Salmon Run, to make this entry feel just new enough to stand out as it's own sequel. The core gameplay feels super tight and fluid, more so than any of the entries before it. And everything else just feels so polished. I can already tell I'll be putting a ton of hours into it and I can't wait.

Meet me on field of ink, and taste the wrath of my Tri-slosher!

I think for SOME teams who have the 4 players in a tri-color turf war, defending the middle of a map will be too tough. I think it requires an extra level of coordination for a team of 4 to defend the middle of a map while being attacked on both sides. At least in a normal turf war, you push towards the middle of the map and try to push beyond or defend from that same side. For the team of 4 in a tri color turf war, they have to defend from two different sides. So that can be extra difficult until players get on the same page.

I also didn't realize the rules of the tri color turf war until after the first match. But that is my fault and I should have read the rules. I won a lot of tri-color turf wars and was winning a ton of clout. It seemed like Team Scissors had a hard time defending the middle area from attacks coming from both sides.

By the way, what is the point of leaving friendly fire on for the two teams of two? I had a splat roller equipped and I couldn't count how many times I went to attack the middle and support Team Rock (I was on Team Paper) only for me to splat both members of Team Rock with my roller as I painted over them. In fact, I took the opportunity to splat Team Rock every chance I got because it was fun to run them over. Are they leaving friendly fire on because it makes the teamwork aspect a little more complex? Maybe they should turn it off since it is so easy to accidently (or intentionally) splat our own "teammates" from the other team.

I'm really enjoying the love fest between Microsoft and Nintendo.

Imagine: A Microsoft and Nintendo built console with the power of Microsoft consoles, the innovation of Nintendo consoles, and the best of both worlds in terms of games. We can only dream of such a gaming utopia.

Spoiler Alert: Their creative technical solution around the Switch's graphical and processing limitations was to make No Man's Sky on Switch a 2-D, top down SHMUP while in flight, and a 2-D, side scrolling platformer while on the ground.

Get excited for No Man's Sky Switch Edition, coming soon.

@anoyonmus I would say if you are a fan of Street Fighter it is definitely worth it. It has all the characters from Super Turbo including Akuma and 2 bonus characters, you can use either classic graphics and sound or the HD graphics and new sound, it has normal arcade mode and buddy mode where you can fight 2v1 with powered up boss characters, and the online is IMO pretty good as well. You can mess around with a color editor and make custom colored characters too.

@Bionicman08 If you are into the games for the single player experience, then yes. You can speed up, slow down, or even rewind the game so you can take back any hits the CPU gets on you. You can play both the US and Japanese version of the games and see the differences (such as the Japanese version of Super Turbo being much easier compared to the insane difficulty of the US version), and you can complete arcade high score challenges to get on the online high score board.

Its a shame that Nintendo Life always forgets about Ultra Street Fighter II in these articles about SF and Capcom and never mentions it. The version of SF4 that came out on the 3DS was NOT the last new Street Fighter to be released on a Nintendo console. The last new SF release to be on a Nintendo console was Ultra Street Fighter II, and that game was a Switch exclusive. The 30th Anniversary collection, while fun, should have been built with better net code. Ultra Street Fighter II has superior online connections compared to the 30th collection and is the best way to play online SF on the Switch. And yet, it is always forgotten in these articles.

My daughter actually started talking about how she was excited for this game and wanted to get it before I even mentioned this game to her (she loves the DC female super heroes), so I will definitely be getting this for her.

I've dabbled with the demo playing as the wrestling guy with the championship belt on his shoulder, and the fighting engine itself does seem pretty solid. I'm thinking of picking this one up this weekend but I just hope the online play is good.

Ultra Street Fighter 2 definitely has the most active online player base over anniversary collection. You can find good, competitive matches to play no matter if you are a beginner or expert in USF2, no matter the time of day. Anniversary collection can be hit or miss in the online department, and I find that matches overall can be laggier in the online collection as well. USF2 is actually a must have for any street fighter fans on switch who enjoy online play. And to be fair, USF2 can be cosidered the most "up to date" version of SF2 that is available to play on any console.

@GameOtaku For the jury example to apply to what was just being discussed, it would literally have to be a case about arguing over the meaning of a word, because that's basically all that has been going on here. One person arguing a word means something from one point of view, and another person arguing over what the word means from another point of view. In reality, a thing is a thing, whether you have 2 names for it or 50 names for it. But I know what you mean.

@tabzer Cite something, anything, that backs up anything you've tried to say. From a credible source. You can't do it you clown.

@GameOtaku @tabzer Oh now you have no problem with copyright infringement, in our case being the illegal copying and distribution of the copyrighted work of another, equating to theft. But you sure have had a problem with it all night. Must be your imagination running wild thinking you weren't resisting that very point all night. Here's some greatest hits of you doing just that:

"Conflating infringement with theft is also bad form on your part."

"My correct assessment, that copying something (with or without permission) is not theft, is very basic and unchallenged."

"Unlicensed or "illegal" distribution or does not automatically mean theft. It's real simple."

"I cited the legal definition of theft, which proves that copyright infringement is not theft."

That is all your words, stating that copyright infringement is not theft. And by the way you never cited anything. The entire reason I was having this discussion with you and with anybody else is because they instruct business students on the topic of copyrights and their application within the law. I also took a e-commerce class where they expanded on this topic as well, and I know what I'm taking about, you don't. You never spoke to anybody of authority about this or studied it in a real setting on your life. I don't work in copyright law, but as an accountant, I have a thorough understanding of copyrights due to my education and due to how important lucrative copyrights can be to generating revenue. A company needs to know how copyright law works and how to defend creative works from unauthorized use. Clowns like you who just argue just to argue then get exposed for knowing nothing are a dime a dozen on the internet. You can try to enlighten a clown but he's still gonna honk his nose and jump around like an idiot until he can't jump around anymore. Go talk to people who actually work in copyright law and they will tell you the same things I have.

Otaku, it isn't just one professor, it's anybody involved in copyright law.

How convenient you ignore my quote, written by a law professor, from a book on cyber crime that is used to instruct criminal justice students at the university level. Here, you must have just missed it.

Source:Clough, Jonathan (2010). Principles of Cybercrime. Cambridge University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-521-72812-6.

Quote: "Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization."

"Professor Jonathan Clough teaches and researches in the areas of criminal law and evidence, with a particular focus on cybercime, juries and corporate criminal liability. He is the author of Principles of Cybercrime , 2nd edn, (Cambridge University Press, 2015) and co-author of The Prosecution of Corporations (Oxford University Press, 2002). He has published numerous articles in national and international journals, and is currently a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant with the Victorian Department of Justice examining improved methods of judicial communication with juries. He has provide advice to government and presents to the judiciary and the legal profession. He teaches Criminal Law and Evidence in the LLB, and Cybercrime and Corporate and White Collar Crime in the LLM. He is currently Director, Higher Degrees by Research."

I guess you must know more than an actual law professor who advises government, the judiciary, and law enforcement as well?

There is no loss there is no theft? The loss of control over copies of my work being distributed without my consent is a loss you idiot. Then you state that a copyright owner loses some manner of control over those rights in the manner they agree to distribute. Well guess what idiot, when did Nintendo agree to distribute their roms to the website lol?? When does a copyright owner agree to have their work illegally copied and distributed? They don't agree! That's the whole point stupid. I don't agree to you creating copies and here you are creating copies and sending them out into the world without my consent. According to not only me, but to the law professor I just cited, and according to copyright law itself, that's theft. You're too stupid to get it even when I've spoon fed you like a child.

@tabzer You're misrepresenting the FBI article by taking literally a handful of words then putting your own definition behind it, and you know it. I have been arguing about what constitutes theft: The literal loss of control over something you own all the rights to. Any logical person would agree that a copyright infringement triggers the literal definition of theft.

Source:Clough, Jonathan (2010). Principles of Cybercrime. Cambridge University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-521-72812-6.

Quote: "Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization."

As a copyright holder, I have the right to every copy of my creative work, even if you made your own illegal copies and I retained my master copies. The loss of control of my own work due to you now possessing copies of my work that I do not directly control trigger the moral, social, and legal definitions of theft. It doesn't matter if I suffered a massive or tiny financial loss, or none at all. I have the right to every single copy, not you. If you own even one unauthorized copy of my creative work, that is a stolen good in your possession. You may continue to argue over semantics but the truth of theft is the truth, whether you like it or not.

@tabzer

Here is the FBI literally describing what we are both discussing as "theft."

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft

"The Bureau has already been collaborating for years with brand owners, copyright holders, and trademark holders because we know the harm that intellectual property theft causes: legitimate businesses lose billions of dollars in revenue and suffer damaged reputations, consumer prices go up, the U.S. and global economies are robbed of jobs and tax revenue, product safety is reduced, and sometimes lives are even put at risk. FBI efforts with these businesses to date have involved shared information, aggressive criminal initiatives based on current or emerging trends, and investigations."

The article states that the FBI works with copyright holders to defend against intellectual property theft aka copyright infringement, which applies to digital software and roms as well. The FBI itself calls it theft. You are simply arguing about whether a copyright violation triggers your personal beliefs about theft, which is simply arguing about what word to call a copyright infringement. The FBI calls it theft, creators call it theft, anybody who respects the work of others would call it theft.

And once again, I am arguing that taking something that does not belong to you, digital or not, copy or not, is theft. You argue that a potential loss must occur for it to be theft. What about the loss of control over ones work? Just because I own the master copies of my work doesn't mean that unauthorzed copies of it have not been stolen from my control. If I am given complete control of a creative work through copyright law, then I completely own the work, regardless of whether someone who has illegally copied my work never sells their copy and creates financial loss. I own the work. Not you. You have no right to copy my work. You have no right to possess my work even if I also possess it. I own ALL copies of that work. If you are in possession of something that belongs to me, that is theft. It is theft in every sense of the word.

@tabzer Don't take it from me. Ask any creator of a valuable intellectual property if they consider the illegal distribution and copy of their work to be theft or not. The very reason copyrights exist is to protect the creator of intellectual property from having someone else steal their work and profit off it, pass it off as their own, or to otherwise take ownership of it without authorization. Again, the definition of theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you. It doesn't get more basic than that. You being stupid or unable to grasp a simple concept is on you. I don't mind if you live your life as an idiot. If I can't help you even when I tried to spoon feed you, then nobody will ever be able to explain the concept of theft to you.

@tabzer Copyrights protect a creator from having their creative works copied, distributed, or sold in any fashion without their authorization. If I write a book, copyright it, and then you copy my book word for word and start distributing it, you have literally stolen my work. If I shoot a movie, copyright it, and you sneak into my office at night and create copies of it for distribution, you have stolen my movie. If I code a video game, copyright it, and you download an illegal rom and play it, you are in possession of a stolen good. All of these are examples of copyright laws being broken and of the theft of intellectual property aka piracy. I can just imagine you being taught about the world growing up and you saying no and then coming up with your own realities about things. Copyright infringement where you illegally copy and distribute digital goods unauthorized is literally dealing in stolen copies of goods whose ownership rights belong to other people. If I take something that doesn't belong to me, it is quite literally theft. You don't get it because I'm sure you don't get alot of things in life. And that's okay. There's a place in this world for everyone, even you.

@tabzer I have been sourcing all of my statements. That is called providing evidence. You have provided no evidence of anything you have stated. The fact that you don't realize that I have been providing evidence this whole time that supports my arguments, while you provide none at all, prove that you're just writing how you feel. I gave the the definition of a copyright and how it protects the creative works of others, I gave you a definition of software theft, and both of these definitions were literally taught to me while I was a business undergrad student. I gave you a real life example of men being charged with software theft, and you say I am yet to cite a situation where someone was charged with software theft. You want more? Okay.

Reference: http://www.siia.net/Divisions/IP-Protection-Services/About/Real-Life-Examples-of-Piracy
Quote:
"Web Pirates Punished
Judges routinely hand down tough sentences for software piracy. Three major software pirates were charged with criminal copyright infringement for their involvement in the manufacture and widespread distribution of pirated software. Both were initially investigated by SIIA and later referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Customs.

Danny Ferrar, owner and operator of BuysUSA. com, a massive for-profit software piracy website, was sentenced in federal court to six years in prison. Ferrar and his co-conspirators operated the www. BUYSUSA.com website, which sold pirate copies of Adobe, Autodesk and Macromedia software at prices substantially below the suggested retail price.

During the time of its operation, BUYSUSA.com illegally sold more than $4.1 million of copyrighted software, resulting in nearly $20 million in losses to the software owners. At the time of sentencing, this was the longest prison term ever handed down in a software piracy case. Ferrar was also ordered to forfeit the proceeds of his illegal conduct, pay restitution of more than $4.1 million, and perform 50 hours of community service.

The asset forfeiture included a Cessna 152; a Cessna 172RG; a Model TS-11 ISKRA aircraft; a RotorWay International helicopter; a 1992 Lamborghini; a 2005 Hummer; a 2002 Chevrolet Corvette; two 2005 Chevrolet Corvettes; a 2005 Lincoln Navigator; an IGATE G500 LE Flight Simulator; a 1984 twenty-eight foot Marinette hardtop express boat; and an ambulance - all of which Ferrar had purchased with the profits from his illegal site. Ferrar also agreed to surrender the proceeds of sales of two fire trucks that were also bought with his illegal proceeds.

Less than a month later, Ferrar's record prison term was shattered when Nathan Peterson, owner and operator of iBackups was sentenced to 87 months (7 years, 3 months) in prison for his crimes. Peterson had previously pled guilty to two counts of criminal copyright infringement. In addition to his prison term, Peterson was required to pay restitution of $5,402,448 and a $250,000 punitive fee.

Working on behalf of its members, SIIA first alerted the FBI of possible software piracy by Peterson and subsequently worked with investigators and prosecutors to assure that Peterson's operation was stopped and that he was properly punished. iBackups sold pirated software over the Internet, claiming it was "backup software" - legal copies of software to be used by the software licensee for backup in case of system crashes. It is, however, illegal to resell such copies.

Often software pirates are often not just intellectual property thieves, but are involved in other illegal activities. This proved true once again when, while on bond in this case, Peterson was convicted in Los Angeles for the sale of six handguns and an illegal assault weapon to an alleged heroin dealer.

Shortly after Ferrar and Peterson were sentenced, Jeremiah Mondello, formerly a college student from the University of Oregon, was sentenced by a U.S. District Court in Oregon on charges of copyright infringement, aggravated identity theft and mail fraud. Mondello received a sentence of 48 months in federal prison, three years supervised release following jail time, and 150 hours of community service per year. Further, Mondello's personal computers and $220,000 in cash were seized as part of the sentencing mandates. SIIA began investigating the eBay seller later discovered to be Mondello. Using data collected by SIIA's proprietary Auction Enforcement Tool, SIIA identified Mondello through his eBay seller ID and determined there were many more additional eBay identities that likely were being used by Mondello. SIIA then referred all of its case information to the DOJ's Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) and the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Cyber Crime Center — where investigators were able to determine that Mondello was not only using a handful of falsified identities - but also created more than 40 fictitious seller IDs. He did so by recording and stealing peoples' bank account information through a keystroke logger that he distributed over the Internet. He then used that information to set up false PayPal accounts using fictitious seller names. By creating these fake seller IDs, he was able to artificially inflate his relatively high standing in the eBay marketplace, which he then used to attract sales and deliver the pirated goods.

Here it is AGAIN:
"Judges routinely hand down tough sentences for software piracy."

Piracy is another name for software theft, or maybe you didn't know that either since you don't seem to know much of anything. What constitutes software theft?

Reference:

https://itstillworks.com/legal-penalties-software-piracy-1158.html

"Types of Piracy
U.S. copyright laws categorize software piracy into three categories. Any infringements in these areas can result in legal action. Organized counterfeit sales involve illegally duplicating and selling copyrighted software without the permission of the copyright owner. Even purchasing the software may result in a fine. Unlicensed use is the most common type of piracy with home users and businesses. This occurs when individuals or employees make copies of or share software without an adequate number of licenses. This also includes using restricted-use software for other purposes, such as using academic versions in a business instead. The final type of piracy is hard disk loading. When software is loaded on a new or used computer by a third party without the copyright holder's permission, software piracy has occurred. This typically happens with shady computer retailers or repair technicians.

Damages to Copyright Holder
Anytime software piracy happens, the copyright holder loses profits for each occurrence. If found guilty, the accused is responsible for paying for any damages and lost profits. If the software has been shared with others, the accused may also be responsible for profits lost from each installed copy.

Federal Penalties
Software piracy is considered a federal crime, much like illegally downloading music and movies. Some cases may go beyond paying back the copyright holder and result in federal statutory damages. The amount varies per case, but can be as much as $150,000 per infringement.

Criminal Piracy
For people or businesses caught selling illegal software, the legal penalties are much worse. Fines can go as high as $250,000. The accused may also face up to five years in prison with a permanent felony on their record."

At this point, I am beginning to think you're not intellectually capable of understanding law, which is okay. But just stating your opinions while offering no evidence doesn't make anything you say true. Sorry to break it to you.

@tabzer I am reading what you are writing, but what you are writing is your own opinion. Its literally just how you feel about software theft. You feel that copied software can't be stolen because the actual theft is the potential cost/damage to the "IP" holder. Uhhh, thats your opinion, but okay? You can't just state your opinion about something and that makes you right. So if instead of providing digital copies of software, I sneak into Nintendo HQ and steal a bunch of games and give them out for free or sell them. Isn't that theft of software? YES. Okay, now instead of stealing physical copies, I sneak into Nintendo HQ and copy digital games off of their server, go home, create a website, and provide copies of those roms for sale or for free even. Isn't that software theft? YES. What if I download some roms from a pirate site and then turn around and provide downloaded copies of those roms for free or for sale. Isn't that software theft? YES. What if I download Windows 10 from a pirate site and install it on my computer. Isn't that software theft? YES. Just because digital software isn't something you can physically steal doesn't mean it can't be stolen. Again, I can explain this to you all day but at some point you need to make the connections yourself.

Here is an article on software theft from:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/12/18/six-plead-guilty-in-100-million-software-piracy-case/

First paragraph:

"KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Six people pleaded guilty to charges related to more than $100 million in stolen software such as Windows XP that authorities said was one of the largest such piracy schemes prosecuted by the U.S. government."

Stealing software is a crime. If you don't own the rights to software, you cannot even have it installed on your computer. You certainly cannot make copies of the software for sale or for distribution. Again, you're just making up your own reality and somehow thinking that your way of thinking is how the world works. It doesn't. Take some business classes and you will definitely be taught about copyright law, digital theft and piracy, and the laws that apply. Don't take it from me, take it from the literal millions of other examples out in the world right now that prove that you are wrong, including this very article we are commenting on lol.

@tabzer You don't get it. They can't provide copies of software that does not belong to them at all because they don't own the copies. It's that simple. What don't you understand about copyright and software theft that I have not already explained? Tell you what, go make your own website and provide downloads for software under copyright protection that you didn't get permission to provide and tell me what happens to you. You'll be taken to court for software theft. You're not living in the real world, and if you truly believe that distributing software that you don't have the rights to isn't software theft then I am afraid for what other incorrect beliefs you may hold in your life. It's like telling someone, "Hey man, if you keep giving out those free copies of Windows 10 that you illegally downloaded from that pirate site, you're gonna get in trouble for software theft." And you reply "Nah man, copied software is literally not stolen." If you can't understand the laws of the world then you're in for a rough life lol. Just because you refuse to acknowledge reality doesn't mean your reality becomes true.

@tabzer

"Software theft means the unauthorized or illegal copying, sharing or usage of copyright-protected software programs. Software theft may be carried out by individuals, groups or, in some cases, organizations who then distribute the unauthorized software copies to users."'

Reference: https://www.techopedia.com/definition/22203/software-theft

Copyright:

"Copyright is a law that gives the owner of a work (like a book, movie, picture, song or website) the right to say how other people can use it."

The owners of the website didn't have the right to provide copies of software that they did not own to visitors of their website due to the copied software being protected by copyright. They had no right, at all, to provide copies of that software. Since they were providing copies of software that did not belong to them, it means the software was stolen. It is no different then if they went into Nintendo HQ and made physical copies of Nintendo games from their files and then provided the copies in physical form. The only difference is that the copies were in digital form. In both cases, the software does not belong to them, and it is stolen. If you don't understand this then there is no helping you because I have spelled it out for you as clear as day. Ask yourself why the website got taken down in the first place if the software being provided did not belong to them.

@tabzer You do realize that the software was all under copyright and couldn't be copied or distributed in any form or fashion right? Do you know what a copyright is? It means a creative work can only be recreated or distributed by the holders of the copyright. In the United States, for example, video games are given 95 years of copyright protection from the date they are first published. That means that literally EVERY single video game ever published in the U.S. is still under copyright protection. In the U.K , copyrights last for the entire life of the creator plus 70 years after their death. In Japan, it is the life of the creator plus 50 years. So you can see how basically every video game ever created is still protected from being copied by others. The website in question was providing digital copies of games for download without the consent of the owners of the copyright. To top it off, they were even making money off of the illegal distributions. Hopefully you have learned something about copyright protection and how virtually every game ever made is still protected from being copied and distributed without the owner's consent. Either the owners of the website paid for the rights to distribute those games, or they didn't, which makes their actions THEFT. We know they did not pay for the rights because the website has been taken down after Nintendo took action in the U.S. court system. It doesn't get more clear than that.

@tabzer Do you know what profit means? I'm legitimately asking because nothing you said in your original post has anything to do with the website profiting off of goods they neither own nor produce.

Profit:
Noun: "a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something."
In this definition, we see that a profit is earned when the amount earned selling something is greater than the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing that something. The website in question did not buy those roms, nor did they incur costs to produce them. Video games, even old ones, are protected under copyright law, meaning the website owners are stealing those games by illegally reproducing them online and distributing them to others. The only expenses the website owners have are maintaining the website and keeping it operational. I assume the website owners were earning more money through memberships and advertising then they were spending on maintaining the website, or else the website would have went out of business long ago. This means they were profiting off of the stolen goods of others, since they were earning money off of goods they didn't legally obtain in the first place.

Profit:
Verb: "obtain a financial advantage or benefit, especially from an investment."

The website owners were clearly obtaining a financial advantage in that they were charging members money to access the roms. Since the website owners didn't actually invest anything into obtaining the stolen roms, they were literally profiting off of the stolen goods of others. Those roms did not belong to them , and they were making money off of those roms.

Once again, I fail to see how anything you have written so far comes close to proving that the website owners were not profiting off of stolen goods.

@tabzer I was talking about the website mentioned in the article being the ones profiting. They were selling memberships to allow access to goods they did not own or produce. That is literally profiting off of someone else's work, not to mention the ad revenue they were generating to boot from the website traffic.

@Mr_Muscle Funny you say that because you're the one who just can't admit he's wrong, just like a child. You keep adding little caveats in every post to try and save a little face instead of just saying hey, I was wrong. Here's an adult tip for you for the real world that I've been trying to teach you this whole time. If you come at someone aggressively and try to portray them as being uninformed, then you better be right. Because you're the one who got aggressive with me first. Don't be surprised when you get exposed for not knowing your s*** and you get your snark thrown right back in your face. You keep owning yourself in every post. You have a great talent for that I must say. Lmao.

@Mr_Muscle "Someone doesn't know much about "public domain." Might want to read up on it before accusing the entire readerbase of stealing lmao."

If you want to come at someone like that then you better be right. Actually try reading up on a topic before trying to tell someone else that they're wrong and lmao'ing about it, when it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about. Later!

@Mr_Muscle This article is about a website selling roms for download, is it not? That is why I was bringing up selling roms. I also pointed out that according to you and your understanding of Public Domain law, you believed anybody could legally take ownership of old roms. Roms don't appear out of nowhere, they are provided by someone, such as through downloading them from a website. How do websites provide roms to people? They provide a copy of the data for download. So you're talking about roms, but you're somehow not talking about them being copied and made available for download? You're being disingenuous. A copyright literally means nobody can copy a creative work and distribute it to anybody else. The word copy is right there in copyright, as in no right to copy unless you own the copyright. Downloads are copies of games. Some websites also sell these copies, such as the website mentioned in the article. If you can't keep up with the topic, then that's on you. Goodnight bro.

@Mr_Muscle It isn't even about selling. If a work is copyrighted, you can't COPY it or DISTRIBUTE it because it doesn't belong to you. You're the one who accused me of needing to read up on something that I have already read up on and then you added in your snarky "lmao" for good measure. If you want to attempt to state facts in a public forum, then at least know what you're talking about. "lmao."

@Mr_Muscle Hey genius, did you know that video games published in the United States are protected under copyright for 95 years from the date of publication? Wow, I guess that explains why we don't see random companies selling old Atari and NES games without getting permission from the copyright owners first! Wow, according to you, there should be a huge legal market of old video games floating around that anybody can copy and distribute! But oh! That's not reality is it? Creative works are protected under copyright for a set number of years. That's why you can't legally copy roms of Pac-Man or Mario and sell them genius.

@Bomberman64 Are you serious? No human being or corporation spent their own money and capital to produce rhinos and sell them to the public to provide financial returns for their investors. Rhinos are a naturally occurring species on the planet Earth, not a product that was created by a company to sell to consumers.

Video games are tangible goods that were created by a person or company for the express purpose of being sold to the public to generate a financial return for the owners of that company. Even if the video game is no longer being sold or produced, the ownership rights to that property is still either retained by the company who created it, or the ownership rights have been passed down to whatever company or entity that either bought out the original company, or who literally bought the rights to the games themselves. Even the licensing rights to old games are owned by SOMEONE, so anybody who is copying them without consent of the owner is STEALING. Forgive me for saying, but your comparison is so completely illogical to the point that it literally makes no sense at all.

It seems like some of you sticking up for pirating someone else's work didn't even read the article. This website that got taken down was charging $30 for membership and unlimited downloads every year. That's not only illegally copying someone else's work and distributing it, that's literally profiting off of stolen goods. And this is not to mention any potential ad revenue from click through ads and ad impressions. Some of you need to grow up and realize that the trafficking of stolen roms for money isn't about "preserving history", it's about illegally stealing the work of others and profiting off of it. If any of you ever create anything and have it stolen while someone else profits off of it then you may have a different opinion about someone else "preserving the history" of your work while you get paid ZERO.

Overwatch coming to Switch may get me back into playing it again.

I have the game for PC and used to play it quite a bit, but I stopped playing because the higher ranked I became, the more often I played in toxic matches. About 2 years ago, I was steadily making my way up and out of platinum when I played several matches over the course of a few days that turned me off completely to the game. I had such toxic teammates in some of those games that I pretty much didn't want to experience that type of online interaction again. I love competitive gaming, but not when I have to hear toxic teammates over voice chat ruining the experience.

I'd rather play 1v1 fighting games now to get my competitive fix (or online multiplayer strategy games), but I'd jump back into Overwatch on Switch. Probably. I have too many games to play as it is lol.

I thought that all the complaining about joy con drift was overblown until my left joy con stick started to drift. I first noticed it about 2 months ago. It is in my left, neon green, joy con, and not even recalibrating fixes the issue. I have not put any significant wear and tear on the left stick, but it started to drift nonetheless. It does not happen all the time, but it is of course very annoying when it happens. This is the first time I have ever experienced any kind of defect out of a Nintendo product.

I bought the Splatoon 2 Switch Console package on launch day, so that was several months after the initial launch of the console.

I should also note that I play my Switch alot, but mostly in docked mode. So I do not use my joy cons that much at all compared to using the Switch docked and using a pro controller. Even when I do undock the Switch, I am using Youtube most of the time and not using the left joy con stick that much. It really is some type of design flaw that has affected many left joy cons and is not something that is happening due to the user.

Even though this is a remake, I don't think some people are giving Nintendo enough credit. They make fun games. Even if this game is a remake, I don't doubt at all that it will stand alone as it's own enjoyable and unique experience. Doubt the Legend of Zelda at your own peril!

If I can't play Fox vs Fox, Final Destination, no items, in Samurai Showdown, then its not a balanced game and its a game for children and its not a game for elite gamers like me and I won't stand for it and I won't support it and I won't buy it!!!!!