• alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      this is clearly not true, Portal literally just got a huge fangame with a Steam release. the issue is entirely that it uses Nintendo stuff and the guy even says as much

      • ram@bookwormstory.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        This is just a corporate passing of the buck. There’s no reason to believe a third party infringing upon the properties of two parties would give the latter parties any ability or risk of going after one another.

        This project was not on steam and as such was not distributed by nor associated with Valve in any way beyond infringement of IP and use of their assets. Let’s not give Valve a pass just because they can lazily and baselessly say “um nintendo!” about it.

        • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Let’s not give Valve a pass just because they can lazily and baselessly say “um nintendo!” about it.

          okay but this was not your initial argument–this is an entirely separate issue from it, actually. your argument was “Valve about to become as litigious as Nintendo with IP they’ve let rot.” and that is demonstrably false or they wouldn’t have let Portal Revolution release. if they were going to be litigious about the Portal IP, why would they DMCA Portal64 but not Revolution?

          to me, this is clearly an example of incorrectly getting mad about something and then shifting the goalposts to not have to take the L.

            • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              This is nitpicky and toxic.

              are we seriously calling “pointing out that the argument being made has been changed in a rhetorical sleight of hand because the original argument is completely wrong” nitpicky and toxic now? come on. this is a piss take and bordering on “let’s look the other way when someone is making a false argument that aligns with what i want to be true”.

              • millie@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                I feel like you should take a step back and take a look at your posts lately. You’ve been super combative, looking for points to cling to and attack people on. It literally looks like every angry redditor. It’s a terrible look for the admin of an instance whose slogan is ‘bee nice’.

                • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  While you may not agree with the tone that Alyaza used in their reply, their response is logically and factually correct and I think it’s natural for someone to be upset about someone who’s being deceitful with their point (whether it’s done consciously or not). Furthermore, jumping into a conversation someone else is having online to call one side pedantic or toxic isn’t exactly treating them with good grace or being nice. If you wanted to diffuse, you could have asked questions or treated their response as charitably as possible before jumping to conclusions about intent.

                  Being nice and being civil are two different things and we do not strive to be perfectly civil around here. After all, weaponizing civility is often used by the intolerant to try and tone police others. While tolerance/intolerance isn’t at play here, the same mechanisms of speech are, and its fair to attribute charitability and faith based on the conversation as it unfolds. If someone is deceitful in their response, someone responding to that bad faith with less respect is to be expected.

          • ram@bookwormstory.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            to me, this is clearly an example of incorrectly getting mad about something and then shifting the goalposts to not have to take the L.

            Or it’s hyperbole.

            • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              you run into the same issue: being hyperbolic here doesn’t really work if literally the same week of your hyperbole, something directly countering the hyperbolic point you’re making happens. hyperbole isn’t non-falsifiable or unimpeachable just because it’s hyperbole and intended to be humorous–you can still be hyperbolically wrong, and in this case you are.

              • ram@bookwormstory.socialOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                Yes, hyperbole is non-falsefiable. It’s a rhetorical device, not a claim unto itself. In this instance it’s a rhetorical device being used to communicate the idea that, were this Nintendo, they’d be receiving rightful backlash, but people, like you, online will give a pass due to the sheer fact that it’s Valve doing the takedown.

                • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  were this Nintendo, they’d be receiving rightful backlash, but people, like you, online will give a pass due to the sheer fact that it’s Valve doing the takedown.

                  well… now you’re indicating that this kind of isn’t hyperbole from you, because you’re just straight arguing the underlying (and still incorrect) “hyperbolic” point now, lol

                  Yes, hyperbole is non-falsefiable. It’s a rhetorical device, not a claim unto itself.

                  i mean i think this is just obviously ridiculous. if someone said “every person who dislikes Valve is a pedophile who hurts children” or whatever hyperbolically i think it’d be silly to say that’s non-falsifiable just because it’s hyperbolic. there’s still an underlying and incorrect claim being made

  • Deebster@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    The fact that it’s Nintendo’s IP seems the key thing here.

    So did Nintendo get Valve to do this, or is Valve just covering its back from the notoriously-litigious Nintendo?

    • taanegl@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Does it matter? Legal housekeeping is something corporations do all the time. In this case, they might want less friction with Nintendo. Mayhaps they also want to go full into protecting emulation, but can’t do that if any ROMs are specifically part and parcel of a game.

      It probably needs to be generic, like bro: you can’t prevent the user from reading those files using an application, because those files could have been gained using legal methods. But it becomes harder to defend it in court if there are games in the Valve Steam store that specially target certain IP’s directly.

      So forget Mario and Metroid Prime mods, you’ll have to get those working through an emulator that supports modding or add-ons.

      In any case, Nintendo is reselling pirated ROM’s because they lost their copy, so yeah. They can’t ever be directly against ROMs, as long as they have been obtained legally ***

  • Butterbee (She/Her)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Dang, this is such a cool project and it’s a shame this is happening to it. It’s understandable that Valve wants to be nowhere near Nintendo’s proprietary libraries though. I hope this isn’t the end of the project full stop.

    • Lojcs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      If Nintendo had a problem they could do the dmca. Valve doesn’t need to enforce Nintendo’s copyright for them

      • Big P@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t know if valve told him to stop the project or just advised him to stop. There are replacement libraries available if he really wanted to continue, or he could make the project require you to have a copy of the library to build

    • Khrux@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      TF2 source 2 totally makes sense as although TF2 gets no updates, it’s still a popular game and valve can’t totally take the idea of upgrading it to source 2 off the table themselves.

      This one is a shame that I don’t really understand, I wonder if it’s related to the fact that it’s for the GameCube and that’s Nintendo’s territory. I’m curious to see if this activity continues and expands, as even on steam there are remakes of half life in source and basically fan expansions to portal being sold for profit, among other products and projects.