Quoting: pleasereadthemanual

QuoteSweeney's point here is that Valve make a lot of money from that 30% cut and goes on to say "If you subtract out the top 25 games on Steam, I bet Valve made more profit from most of the next 1000 than the developer themselves made" and complains that when you add together Valve's cut, marketing and so on that the cut for developers is small.

So his first argument is that Valve is making more money from the games that sell really well than the publisher themselves.

Valve almost immediately reduces their cut of games that sell really well:

QuoteIt was only a few days later (quite cheekily then), that Valve suddenly publicly announced their plan to reduce their take for the top-selling Steam games.

And then Tim Sweeney complains about Valve not doing it for everyone and only the big publishers benefit (that isn't necessarily true; small developers occasionally ship hits).

If Valve reduced their cut for everyone, what would his next argument be?

I'm trying to take Tim Sweeney's side here because it's true that Valve has a near-monopoly on PC games (I wish they had a monopoly on Japanese VNs too) and monopoly power should not exist, but these arguments don't seem to be coming from a place where I can assume good faith.

What I find even more absurd is that it to me sounds like he actually is quite ok with Valve taking 30% but is having more of a problem with Apple doing it and wants Valve to lower their commission to thus somehow force Apple to lower theirs as well.

Also not sure how Valve who gets 30% could make more money than the devs that gets the remaining 70% as he claims (and even if we include the typical publisher who:s average cut is 10%-20%, the devs should still get > 30%).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Fremen

Quoting: Alm888I despise Embracer Group and PLAION while not particularly caring for Saber Interactive or other studios mentioned in the news.

So… Is it good news? If anything, this shows that Embracer/PLAION is struggling to stay afloat and in desperate need for cash. Good.

Quoting: F.UltraThe selling of Saber have nothing to do with the financial status of Embracer or with their previous missed investments. This is simple done because Saber is Russian and the CEO of Embracer is also involved with renting out property to (among others) the Swedish Defense and they simply have let him know that he should either cut ties with Russia or with them, he can't have both. And it also looks like their business with Saber is infringing on the export embargo on Russia.

[sarcasm]So, Nimble Giant, 3D Realms, Slipgate, New World Interactive, Fractured Byte, DIGIC, Sandbox Strategies and Mad Head Games are Russian too. Good to know.[/sarcasm]
If Embracer/PLAION could absolutely not have any dealings with anything "Russian" (yeah, sure, like such a thing as "Russian Game Studio" exists… ) then why now? Not, let's say, two years ago?

Yeah don't think it has anything to do with Russia either. Probably Embracer selling off studios that aren't profitable (and Saber hasn't been exactly profitable in the last little while).

In the article the CEO's name is Matthew Karch, which is not a Russian name

Russia does have game studios like 1C or Mundfish

Quoting: Fremen

Quoting: Alm888I despise Embracer Group and PLAION while not particularly caring for Saber Interactive or other studios mentioned in the news.

So… Is it good news? If anything, this shows that Embracer/PLAION is struggling to stay afloat and in desperate need for cash. Good.

Quoting: F.UltraThe selling of Saber have nothing to do with the financial status of Embracer or with their previous missed investments. This is simple done because Saber is Russian and the CEO of Embracer is also involved with renting out property to (among others) the Swedish Defense and they simply have let him know that he should either cut ties with Russia or with them, he can't have both. And it also looks like their business with Saber is infringing on the export embargo on Russia.

[sarcasm]So, Nimble Giant, 3D Realms, Slipgate, New World Interactive, Fractured Byte, DIGIC, Sandbox Strategies and Mad Head Games are Russian too. Good to know.[/sarcasm]
If Embracer/PLAION could absolutely not have any dealings with anything "Russian" (yeah, sure, like such a thing as "Russian Game Studio" exists… ) then why now? Not, let's say, two years ago?

Yeah don't think it has anything to do with Russia either. Probably Embracer selling off studios that aren't profitable (and Saber hasn't been exactly profitable in the last little while).

In the article the CEO's name is Matthew Karch, which is not a Russian name

Russia does have game studios like 1C or Mundfish

Did you two even look at the text I quoted from the news article? Aka "Lars Wingefors is the real owner of the gaming group Embracer, which, according to the Kyiv School of Economics, is the Swedish company with the largest turnover in Russia"?

So let's look at the history of Saber:

QuoteSaber Interactive was founded in 2001 by Andrey Iones, Matthew Karch, and Anton Krupkin.[5][6] Together they created a 3D engine from scratch, gathered a team of artists from Saint Petersburg, Russia and began working on their first game
...
On August 1, 2016, Saber Interactive opened its first internal studio outside of Russia

Ok so was created in Russia and had a Russia only presence for 15 years. Still convinced that Saber have zero to do with Russia?

For crying out loud, it was national news over here when SVT exposed all of this.

7 sep 2023: Gaming billionaire Lars Wingefors is designated as a security risk - has business in both Russia and the Swedish defense industry

7 feb 2024: After SVT's reveal: Embracer wants to liquidate in Russia

14 mar 2024: After SVT's reveal: Embracer is leaving Russia

And press release from Embracer: Embracer Group ceases all operations in Russia through the divestment of selected assets from the operative group Saber Interactive

The last link in English, all others in Swedish.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: JarmerI'm eagerly awaiting the day the article is posted "Embracer group files for bankruptcy". Until then, seeing more studio free of their clutches is great news.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyIt looks less like someone buying companies and more like a deal between two sports teams--"And you get so-and-so, but I get a first round draft pick . . ."

The selling of Saber have nothing to do with the financial status of Embracer or with their previous missed investments. This is simple done because Saber is Russian and the CEO of Embracer is also involved with renting out property to (among others) the Swedish Defense and they simply have let him know that he should either cut ties with Russia or with them, he can't have both. And it also looks like their business with Saber is infringing on the export embargo on Russia.

edit: I've added a google translate version of an article from SVT (Swedish public broadcasting similar to BBC) who where the ones that "exposed" all of this. Machine translation which also means that he is labelled as "gambling" when they mean computer games:

QuoteGambling billionaire Lars Wingefors and the Embracer Group's business in Russia are identified by security experts as a security risk. This is because Wingefors also owns properties that are rented out to companies in the Swedish defense industry.

Lars Wingefors is the real owner of the gaming group Embracer, which, according to the Kyiv School of Economics, is the Swedish company with the largest turnover in Russia. At the same time, Lars Wingefors is the main owner of a property company that owns most of the premises in the Bofors industrial area in Karlskoga. Among the tenants are several companies in the defense industry.

- You can be exposed to blackmail, infiltration or other things that can spill over into the real estate business, says the security policy expert Patrik Oksanen.


High exposure – high risk

Patrik Oksanen mainly works with security policy at the think tank Frivärld, but also has assignments at the Norwegian Defense Academy and is a member of the Royal Academy of Military Sciences.

- The greater the financial exposure to Russia, the greater the risk, he says of Wingefor's business.

According to an examination by Sveriges Radio, the Embracer group has a turnover of over SEK 350 million and employs close to 900 people in Russia.

In the video above, Patrik Oksanen develops his view of Lars Wingefor's business as a security risk.
Russia connection not known

Among Wingefor's tenants are the defense industry companies Prevas, PartnerTech and Saab. Representatives of Prevas and PartnerTech state that the connection between the property owner and Russia was unknown to them. Saab does not comment on that information at all.

The entire Bofors industrial area is, however, a protected object. This means that you may not stay within the area without permission, photograph, measure or otherwise depict the buildings in the fenced area.
Don't want to comment

Lars Wingefors does not appear for an interview. In a text message, however, he states that security work is A and O for him and his businesses, and that the regulations surrounding listed companies, such as Embracer, are surrounded by rigorous regulations regarding the handling of independence and information.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pleasereadthemanual

Quoting: F.UltraAnd the emulator would be completely useless without that guide and that key extraction tool, and any site hosting the tool and/or such a guide would violate the DMCA.

That is Nintendo's argument, but the emulator could still be used for Homebrew Switch games. For example, some indie game developers make games for the Gameboy, distributing the emulator and all (e.g. npckc distributing Marron's Day via Sameboy sometime in the next few months).

Yuzu would not be entirely useless without the keys, but Nintendo's argument is that this is not a significant use case and should be discounted. So you're completely correct in your analysis.

you are correct, I completely forgot about the indie scene!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: melkemind

Quoting: emphyThat was nintendo's claim, but they didn't even issue a dmca take-down notice to github, giving a strong indication that even their legal team had doubts as to some of their claims about the legality of the emulation itself.

From what I understand, yuzu's main legal problems were that their devs didn't strictly adhere to a "we can't tell you how/where to get the games"-policy.

Regardless, emudeck does not have the deep pockets required for an effective legal defence against a billion-dollar company in full extortion mode, so I suspect they'll pass up on the opportunity to paint a bullseye on their backs by supporting emulation of a device whose ecosystem is still being commercially exploited.

From what I understand, DMCA takedown notices are for digital content. If they had a claim that their code was used, they could issue a takedown notice. Their actual argument against Yuzu is from a different part of the DMCA (Section 1201), which prevents the circumvention of TPMs (technological protection measures). This is the same argument they used against Dolphin Emulator when they convinced Valve to block it from the Steam store.

As I understand it, the emulator as such doesn't violate the DMCA, the problem was that Yuzu had guides on their web site on how to extract the keys from a Switch and input them into the emulator and that step violates the circumventing clause of the DMCA.

And the emulator would be completely useless without that guide and that key extraction tool, and any site hosting the tool and/or such a guide would violate the DMCA.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI would recommend that the next people who take the code and continue developing it under a different name, host it in some place like the EU and have some kind of region lock where they don't allow downloads from places with DMCA-type anti-digital-lock-tampering laws. Of course, since the code is open and all some people will then mirror it in other places and it will become available around the world--but that will not be the core project's fault, as they will be taking due measures to prevent it.

EU is a terrible idea as it is under US jurisdiction being US vassal states. The EU has gone after piracy before (Sweden, Italy, Germany). Russia/Belarus/China are much better about it, especially now

But this isn't about piracy. Oh, sure, they can say they were "enabling" piracy, but the key issue is that they allegedly enabled the piracy by enabling tampering with a "digital lock" (encryption, DRM et cetera). Such tampering is forbidden under the DMCA, and there are similar provisions in other countries. But it's entirely legal in the EU, is if anything a consumer right.

And while the EU is definitely under the US thumb in terms of geopolitics, their regimes in terms of laws around computing and telecommunications are really quite different, whether it's about privacy, competition or "intellectual property", and the EU shows no signs of interest in harmonizing their approach with the US one.

I was under the impression that the EU would bow head to US based, DMCA takedown orders?

Moreover, I am skeptical of the "pro-consumer claims" that people have of the EU. I heard that some crack scene groups got sent to prison in Germany for tampering with Denuvo, if anything thats anticonsumer

No that is not at all how things work. The DMCA is only legal inside the US, the EU have a (in some areas) similar EUCD so if a US firm wants to file a "DMCA" on a EU based entity then they have to actually file it as a EUCD so they have to change their filings to match the laws of the EUCD.

No EU country is under the US jurisdiction and none of the EU states are US vassal states. That e.g the Pirate Bay was sued in civil court in Sweden have zero to do with the US and more to do with the fact that copyright laws exists in most countries on earth and that from long before the US was even a state.

In fact the Pirate Bay got one of the best defence lawyers available especially since the system works so different over here (over here the looser always pays the entire costs for both sides so there exists very few US like cases where the case is drawn out to drain the other sides resources).

If you think that EU is not US vassal states, you should go watch the videos of Professor Mearsheimer where he talks about how US dictates policy for EU. It kind of works like the Mongolian Imperial model, where they would not bother their vassals and gave them a degree of autonomy until they needed something from them. Same thing here. This is why for example, Germany shot its own industry in the foot by boycotting Russian energy or not saying anything when the US blew up Nordstream 2.

https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-asks-eu-for-iptv-torrents-piracy-support-services-crackdown-220408/

Here's an example of the MPA acting in the EU to shut down IPTV services. There are also APAA actions. There is also a DMCA takedown procedure in the EU:
https://www.dmca.com/FAQ/European-DMCA-Takedown-process

So yes, US jurisdiction expands to the EU. How could it not, when the US literally has troops in Europe? You think that the US would let Europe act independently on issues it deems of vital importance (and protecting US business is of vital importance to it)?

If you follow your own link on the DMCA you'll read the exact same thing regarding the EUCD that I wrote in the post that you are now arguing with.

No, US jurisdiction does not apply in the EU (the US having troops in Europe due to NATO have zero to do with legal jurisdiction, this is a huge non sequitur), the US did not blow up Nordstream 2 (all evidence so far points towards Ukraine, Ukraine supporters in eastern Europe or false flag by Russia).

All this in combination with you bringing up Mearsheimer only tells me that you are posting Russian conspiracy theories.

If you read the link I sent it says:

"DMCA.com is qualified to go to work on behalf of copyright and content owners." this means that EU upholds US copyright claims/law.

US having troops in Europe as part of NATO is precisely what I mean lol. The entire point is to both be a "defensive" alliance and act as an implied threat to European countries to stay within the desired boundaries that the US sets. Its very similar to the Warsaw Pact in that regard. In fact the US has an extensive regieme change history in both Europe, amongst allies and abroad as well.

The US did blow up Nordstream 2, its fairly well known by now. See this investigation by pultizer-prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh:

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

If you also account for the fact that Sweden did an investigation, said they know who did it but then covered it up further lends credence to Seymour's idea. Ukraine does not have the capability to blow up the pipeline. And it doesn't make sense for Russia to blow up their own pipe/money maker, and Russians are rational actors unlike as is commonly portrayed.

Point is this, EU is not really an independent actor and will do what they are told by the US. We have seen this multiple times, with Huawei bans (although neither UK nor German probes found anything of concern), Russian gas bans and if needed with piracy as well.

Sorry but you are utterly confused (or deliberately obtuse). DMCA.com is a company that specialises in takedowns the world over, that they have named their company DMCA doesn't mean that they use the DMCA outside of the USA, it only means that they have decided to call their company this. Cheesus.

And no the actual evidence from the Swedish Navy points directly to Ukrainians or Russians, Ukrainians due to the people that hired the boat that allegedly conducted the attack and Russia due to them having placed lots of navy ships there inside Swedish waters just before the attack.

The major problem with the USA angle is that the USA had nothing to gain from blowing it up, the USA had already convinced Germany et al to stop using it so Nordstream was defacto a dead project already (thanks to the pipe being not used the explosion wasn't bigger than it was). The only ones having a reason to do it is #1 Ukraine to retaliate against Russia and #2 Russia to cry wolf.

file:///home/andrew/Downloads/kchrist6,+p8blythe7.pdf

So I did some research and while DMCA is a US invention (which you are correct about) EU tends to frequently uphold it.

Lol here's what Sweden said:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/7/sweden-ends-nord-stream-probe-citing-lack-of-jurisdiction

The closed the probe citing an "unknown state actor" that they don't want to name. If it was Russia, they would have "exposed it" and it would have been all over the news. Ukraine also denied doing it (although they don't hesitate to confirm they did something). The boat that was allegedly hired by the Ukrainians was held by the Germans, and the Germans found no evidence that Ukrainians did it lol.

The US has alot to gain from blowing up nordstream 2 - first was that it cuts off Germany entirely off Russian energy, so that they could entertain no thoughts of going back to Russian energy. Next, it guarentees that Germany is hooked on US LNG. Finally, it was a last ditch attempt by the US to influence Russian actions. Also blowing up the Nord Stream 2 is an act of war against both Russia and Germany. This is why Sweden wanted to cover it up.

In contrast, Russia has nothing to gain from "crying wolf" because nobody would believe them anyway and because its their main money maker and they hoped that things would eventually settle down and they could reopen the pipe again in the future. This is an impossibility now. Russia has nothing to gain from blowing up their own pipe, its a nonsensical claim as the one saying they fired at themselves at the Zaporozhiye Power Plant lmao

No the EU cannot uphold the DMCA because it's an American law. How can this be so problematic for you? It's only on the points where the DMCA and the EUCD agrees where things can be upheld so when this is done it's done under the EUCD rules and not the DMCA rules.

Don't know where Al Jazeera got that from, I happen to Swedish and have relatives that work in MUST (our Military Intelligence) and the investigation was not dropped due to some unknown state actor, it was dropped because there was nothing further that could be investigated, the Swedish military jurisdiction only covers Swedish territorial waters. All findings have been forwarded to the German investigation who are the ones that are taking it on since the leads went into their jurisdiction and due to secrecy laws for international co-operations of these matters there is nothing more than any part can disclose.

Again, there was nothing in it for the US to risk this kind of operation. Nordstream was off production and was never to be opened again, nothing in Germany would ever be able to turn in on again. Also why risk war with Russia over something useless as this. No, blaming this on the US is just stupid cheap b-level movie plot. It would also leak (all US operations leak as hell and there haven't been a single whisper).

This is why Russians (and the fact that the area was swarmed by the Russian navy in the days before the attack) are the #1 suspect because they had exactly zero to loose by Nordstream being blown up and all to gain in the cry wolf, and Russians loves to cry wolf (they have done so the entire campaign), Putin might not have gained anything internationally from it, but internally in Russia it is one of the things that further secures his position.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI would recommend that the next people who take the code and continue developing it under a different name, host it in some place like the EU and have some kind of region lock where they don't allow downloads from places with DMCA-type anti-digital-lock-tampering laws. Of course, since the code is open and all some people will then mirror it in other places and it will become available around the world--but that will not be the core project's fault, as they will be taking due measures to prevent it.

EU is a terrible idea as it is under US jurisdiction being US vassal states. The EU has gone after piracy before (Sweden, Italy, Germany). Russia/Belarus/China are much better about it, especially now

But this isn't about piracy. Oh, sure, they can say they were "enabling" piracy, but the key issue is that they allegedly enabled the piracy by enabling tampering with a "digital lock" (encryption, DRM et cetera). Such tampering is forbidden under the DMCA, and there are similar provisions in other countries. But it's entirely legal in the EU, is if anything a consumer right.

And while the EU is definitely under the US thumb in terms of geopolitics, their regimes in terms of laws around computing and telecommunications are really quite different, whether it's about privacy, competition or "intellectual property", and the EU shows no signs of interest in harmonizing their approach with the US one.

I was under the impression that the EU would bow head to US based, DMCA takedown orders?

Moreover, I am skeptical of the "pro-consumer claims" that people have of the EU. I heard that some crack scene groups got sent to prison in Germany for tampering with Denuvo, if anything thats anticonsumer

No that is not at all how things work. The DMCA is only legal inside the US, the EU have a (in some areas) similar EUCD so if a US firm wants to file a "DMCA" on a EU based entity then they have to actually file it as a EUCD so they have to change their filings to match the laws of the EUCD.

No EU country is under the US jurisdiction and none of the EU states are US vassal states. That e.g the Pirate Bay was sued in civil court in Sweden have zero to do with the US and more to do with the fact that copyright laws exists in most countries on earth and that from long before the US was even a state.

In fact the Pirate Bay got one of the best defence lawyers available especially since the system works so different over here (over here the looser always pays the entire costs for both sides so there exists very few US like cases where the case is drawn out to drain the other sides resources).

If you think that EU is not US vassal states, you should go watch the videos of Professor Mearsheimer where he talks about how US dictates policy for EU. It kind of works like the Mongolian Imperial model, where they would not bother their vassals and gave them a degree of autonomy until they needed something from them. Same thing here. This is why for example, Germany shot its own industry in the foot by boycotting Russian energy or not saying anything when the US blew up Nordstream 2.

https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-asks-eu-for-iptv-torrents-piracy-support-services-crackdown-220408/

Here's an example of the MPA acting in the EU to shut down IPTV services. There are also APAA actions. There is also a DMCA takedown procedure in the EU:
https://www.dmca.com/FAQ/European-DMCA-Takedown-process

So yes, US jurisdiction expands to the EU. How could it not, when the US literally has troops in Europe? You think that the US would let Europe act independently on issues it deems of vital importance (and protecting US business is of vital importance to it)?

If you follow your own link on the DMCA you'll read the exact same thing regarding the EUCD that I wrote in the post that you are now arguing with.

No, US jurisdiction does not apply in the EU (the US having troops in Europe due to NATO have zero to do with legal jurisdiction, this is a huge non sequitur), the US did not blow up Nordstream 2 (all evidence so far points towards Ukraine, Ukraine supporters in eastern Europe or false flag by Russia).

All this in combination with you bringing up Mearsheimer only tells me that you are posting Russian conspiracy theories.

If you read the link I sent it says:

"DMCA.com is qualified to go to work on behalf of copyright and content owners." this means that EU upholds US copyright claims/law.

US having troops in Europe as part of NATO is precisely what I mean lol. The entire point is to both be a "defensive" alliance and act as an implied threat to European countries to stay within the desired boundaries that the US sets. Its very similar to the Warsaw Pact in that regard. In fact the US has an extensive regieme change history in both Europe, amongst allies and abroad as well.

The US did blow up Nordstream 2, its fairly well known by now. See this investigation by pultizer-prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh:

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

If you also account for the fact that Sweden did an investigation, said they know who did it but then covered it up further lends credence to Seymour's idea. Ukraine does not have the capability to blow up the pipeline. And it doesn't make sense for Russia to blow up their own pipe/money maker, and Russians are rational actors unlike as is commonly portrayed.

Point is this, EU is not really an independent actor and will do what they are told by the US. We have seen this multiple times, with Huawei bans (although neither UK nor German probes found anything of concern), Russian gas bans and if needed with piracy as well.

Sorry but you are utterly confused (or deliberately obtuse). DMCA.com is a company that specialises in takedowns the world over, that they have named their company DMCA doesn't mean that they use the DMCA outside of the USA, it only means that they have decided to call their company this. Cheesus.

And no the actual evidence from the Swedish Navy points directly to Ukrainians or Russians, Ukrainians due to the people that hired the boat that allegedly conducted the attack and Russia due to them having placed lots of navy ships there inside Swedish waters just before the attack.

The major problem with the USA angle is that the USA had nothing to gain from blowing it up, the USA had already convinced Germany et al to stop using it so Nordstream was defacto a dead project already (thanks to the pipe being not used the explosion wasn't bigger than it was). The only ones having a reason to do it is #1 Ukraine to retaliate against Russia and #2 Russia to cry wolf.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Lachu

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LachuI do not known English well, so I do not understood everything. As I understood, they emulator allows to play games outside authorized (by Nintendo!) hardware. But, I do not seen anything related to piracy. They mention users use they emulator to piracy, but how? By playing games on PC? Perhaps, Nintendo should not have rights to restrict this. I only reminder, that British government, many years ago, discovered they cannot opens document created in old Office Suite. They decided to switch to OpenOffice, so MS decided to "standardize" (pheff) OOXML. What about case, when you cannot longer play "your" games, because your hardware were broken and cannot buy new?

Parts in the DMCA prohibits sale, distribution and manufacturing of software or hardware that circumvents digital protections. So the issue here is that the emulator circumvented Nintendo's DRM that they use to sell licenses for to for companies to allow them to release software for the platform. And this circumventium is more than "ignore to check", it involves using the encryption keys built into the Switch itself.

Ok, so problem was not a way to play games on PC, but release games on Nintendo hardware, without asking Nintendo for it. It is battle with moders. Even MS get money from modding XBox (Linux media player was very popular in early days of XBox).

Basically yes, plus that even if the user had to extract the keys from their local Switch there was nothing stopping people from sharing that key or from any one extracting their key and then reselling the Switch but keep using the extracted key. I don't know for sure but it is also possible that the emulation allows for game files to be distributed (aka piracy) freely while the Switch only allows bought copies to be played.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LachuI do not known English well, so I do not understood everything. As I understood, they emulator allows to play games outside authorized (by Nintendo!) hardware. But, I do not seen anything related to piracy. They mention users use they emulator to piracy, but how? By playing games on PC? Perhaps, Nintendo should not have rights to restrict this. I only reminder, that British government, many years ago, discovered they cannot opens document created in old Office Suite. They decided to switch to OpenOffice, so MS decided to "standardize" (pheff) OOXML. What about case, when you cannot longer play "your" games, because your hardware were broken and cannot buy new?

Parts in the DMCA prohibits sale, distribution and manufacturing of software or hardware that circumvents digital protections. So the issue here is that the emulator circumvented Nintendo's DRM that they use to sell licenses for to for companies to allow them to release software for the platform. And this circumventium is more than "ignore to check", it involves using the encryption keys built into the Switch itself.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KROM

Quoting: F.UltraHow would a sales ban protect the industry? I've always seen the strict age thing in Germany being connected with your long history of conservative Christians in the politics.

That's a quite difficult for me to explain, more so in English.
It's not about sales bans, but age verification in itself. There are so many areas where age verification isn't required at all, like e.g. YouTube, TikTok, X, you name it, but when it comes to explicit things, our institutions are very serious about it.

They, for example, demand the well known video portals to require German visitors to pass a real age verification - not talking about the "Yes, I'm 18+" button, but a real identity check.

While one can argue that this is a good thing - I don't think it is - it is only enforced when it comes to this kind of stuff. My take is, that it's not about protecting minors but about protecting the local industry, which has no other choice than to obey to these rules, as our laws directly apply to them. That puts them at an disadvantage compared to companies outside of Germany, so they are lobbying that those rules/laws that apply to them, should apply worldwide to anyone catering German users. This is just wild, IMHO.

Don't get me started that there were talks to try to force *international* websites to show explicit materials to German visitors only after 10 p.m. local time, because kids are (should) be in bed by then. That's just not how globalization and the internet works, that's just some crazy mindset by German bureaucrats.

So back to Steam. Why can any (German) minor buy any game, regardless of its rating, but nobody, no matter the age, can buy explicit (or what our institutions deem to be explicit, where a lot of that is laughable) games? There is some broken logic there. Now, when one thing is blocked already, it's easy to have the other thing blocked as well, if they seem it fit. It's just one more step, as the first step was already made.

In the end, it all wouldn't matter that much if Steam would offer some sort of one-time age verification for accounts. That my account in itself is older than 18 years doesn't seem to count. :)

I just don't want our institutions to go wild and force Steam to block any 18+ games in the future, regardless of their topic, for us Germans. It's not super likely, but I wouldn't wonder. We had some crazy stuff going on here already from the BZKJ in the past <insert "I've seen things" meme here>. That's why this is a sensitive topic to me, I just don't like any kind of paternalism.

Sorry for the rant... :)

But that is just how laws work. If say gambling isn't allowed in state X then obviously people in state X are also not allowed to gamble on the Internet in state Y so state X will try and prohibit state Y to allow people from state X to gamble online there. This is how it works in any state, so Germany isn't special here.

And Germany haven't blocked any game. This is just a side effect (an unfortunate one for people in Germany ofc) of Valve refusing to implement age verification on their store which means that all games that are unrated, automatically gets the 18+ rating and since Valve doesn't perform age verification they are not allowed to sell those games in Germany.

So what you see is a clash of ideas. And this have been highly criticized to Valve for at least 12 years now: https://www.hlportal.de/files/avs_report.pdf so they are well aware of it but still do nothing, they are also loosing sales over it in a very large market and still do nothing, so Valve must really be against implementing it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments