rubiednin

@Arawn93 It's not copyright infringement, and it doesn't weaken Nintendo's ownership— at best it's breach of contract on behalf of the retailers selling copies, or petty theft from employees taking from stock.

Really can't bring myself to be angry about this small stuff, especially when the people getting attacked (streamers) haven't broken laws themselves, and especially not when the victim (Nintendo) isn't being hurt financially.

@ModdedInkling If people don't want spoilers and only want to see official clips and press releases, they can do so. If they want to see clips the publisher didn't release (because they might be unflattering), they should be able to do that too.

Heck, the unflattering bit isn't even an issue here— what I've seen on streams looks way better than the trailers released so far, convinced me to get the game.

@snarls200 That only applies to trademarks— you can ignore copyright infringement as long as you want and still keep ownership.

We've been down this road already: Nintendo itself even gave up on blanket-banning livestreams a couple years back.

@Caryslan "Nintendo has always been a company that likes to control their IPs and jerks who leaks games only makes them clamp down more."

This is literal Stockholm syndrome stuff. "They just can't control themself, it's your fault for getting them angry!"

Nintendo executives choose how to react, no-one makes them take down fan-games, no-one makes them be anal.

People are talking like streaming a game is high treason. What difference does it make if a streamer plays it a day before release or a day after? Just don't watch the streams. Streams and more gameplay footage help people make informed purchases, I see nothing wrong with that.

Nintendo shouldn't "clamp down" on retailers, or require always-online like some are suggesting— or really, do anything drastic over something minor like this…

@Mikmoomamimocki "Nintendo does one bad thing, so they should do more bad things"