this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
31 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

14 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago
 

"Subscription models will always end up being cost/benefit analysis exercises intended to maximise profit."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

I'm not sure nintendo is a good example, see super mario 3d all stars.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They also straight up refuse to discount anything meaningfully ever. And actively harass anyone streaming gameplay of their games without their permission, and are extremely litigious about emulation that's clearly established as perfectly legal, among a bunch of other shit.

[–] LordJer@beehaw.org 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Nintendo accosting influencers who stream games is in this legal grey are. The people Vice gaming spoke about how their legal department cautioned streaming games. They said at the time there is no case law that covers this issue. And it is not known who how the courts would rule.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

Straight up let's plays are maybe ambiguous.

Short clips are clearly fair use and they harass them too.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

And as far as legally playing their old games in the modern era, your options are to find an old physical copy or subscribe to a subscription service. There is no option to buy games individually. Even back when they did that, your purchases never carried over to their next console. They're awful.

[–] TwilightVulpine@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

That's why "to some extent". Nintendo does some unsavory moves, but I'm not sure the point of it is profiteering, especially when it comes to taking things out of sale.

But you can't deny that they put out games of consistent quality, and not overly monetized.