• 0 Posts
  • 4 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 17th, 2024

help-circle
  • I mean sure, I guess that comparison holds up, if you completely ignore the reality of modern walled gardens, and disassociate any difference between a console, which is just hardware, the exact same shit that’s in every PC, and actual vehicles, which have different chassis, engines, suspension, tires, and controls, because they do fundamentally different things.

    A Switch, Switch 2, or Wii are about as different to PCs and any machine that plays games, for that matter as a convection oven is to an air fryer. They’re the same goddamned thing, one just does it on a larger scale, has more capacity, and typically isn’t governed by the brand maker on what you can do with the damned thing.

    Comparing Nintendo vs PCs to ATVs to cars is about as mentally braindead as you can possibly get. What, exactly, can a Wii or Switch do that a PC cannot? I’m presuming you’re referring to it’s gimmicks like the motion controls for the Wii, or the detachable controllers for the Switch. At least, I hope it’s the joycons, notable for their designed stickdrift failure, and Nintendo’s refusal to resolve the issue with customers.

    Otherwise, I would struggle to think of anything different from the Switch when comparing it to even a Steam Deck. It certainly struggles with performance when compared to the Steam Deck. Comparing on a price point, the Switch does technically win out, but again, lowest common denominator and lowest barrier to entry in the gaming industry. What else does the switch even have, outside of people buying games because of brand appeal? Seriously, I’m genuinely struggling to think of a single point Nintendo innovates on, and it’s certainly not their games.

    I could go off into a whole segment of their games, but most have, like I have said previously, been regurgitating innovations other companies and games have made.

    Separately, the gimmicks the Wii and Switch have are arguably the worst parts of the console’s designs. Motion controls that are so bad they had to make an extension that slightly improves the tracking performance. Switch’s most notable feature was the two controllers that detached and could act like a single controller, or act as two half-assed controllers, so you could get stick drift on your controllers twice as fast!

    Now, to address emulation; that’s the whole fucking point of emulation. You can literally do the same thing a switch can do if you emulate the software shell that the walled garden requires all games to be built within. On older consoles you could argue that games were optimized for their hardware, and ran better as a result of optimizing for the hardware, but many ports, to or from consoles have effectively proven that optimization only goes so far and hardware is a hard limitation on what can be done.

    If you can emulate a console’s game, you know, the whole fucking point of a video game console, which is to play games… Kinda answers the question.

    Now, as far as your anecdotal evidence of you and everyone you know owning a Switch; that honestly says more about you than it does about the Switch. I can’t imagine the mental gymnastics needed to justify paying close to half the price of a new PC at the time just for the pleasure of playing the 3d platformer, or the dungeon crawler, or the relaxing life sim game. Nope, never seen a type of game like that outside of Nintendo. Nope, only Nintendo can come up with such interesting concepts as 2D, mostly linear Metroidvania! (/s, in case your IQ is lower than the price of a secondhand DS game.)

    TlDr; Either you’re a corporate plant, a braindead shill on the same level as Harman Smith, or so genuinely casual you consider FIFA to be your most niche game you play. Think for yourself, and I encourage you to actually compare a Nintendo game, and find one gameplay mechanic invented in the past 3-4 years that was actually new. And no, “throwing spheres to capture creatures” is not a new gameplay innovation.



  • I see what you’re saying, but I still don’t see how this gives any merit to the lawsuit, as I’m especially dubious about the multiple lawsuits on valve in a short timeframe. Note how one of the points that the lawsuit is making is that Valve doesn’t verify user’s age, so that is why they’re being sued; for letting children gamble.

    It’s a blatant move made by wealthy CEOs who have dirt to either hit valve in one of its more profitable money making centers, or fall in line with demanding PII from customers for a surveillance state.

    Just to go back to the gymnastics you’ve set up, I’d also like to point out that I’ve seen kids get their hands on plenty of things they aren’t “supposed” to, like cigarettes, other nicotine products, drugs, and many more. While it isn’t great that safeguards aren’t in place for children, that isn’t exactly a great trade-off for turning into fucking North Korea.

    There are solutions for these problems; Better paid, less overworked parents would have more time and mental bandwidth to be involved with their children and be better parents. More strict government regulation (that doesn’t involve dissolving personal freedoms even further than they already have) regarding dangerous practices for its citizens.

    And just to get ahead of any insistence that this lawsuit is a good idea, let me give you some examples of what could be done besides giving PII:

    • laws that more broadly categorize gambling
    • laws that heavily tax gambling profits (from the companies)
    • laws that ban gambling outright (not as likely to succeed, but it is an option)

    Final note here, but if someone is determined to do something, it’s going to be very hard to stop them if they’re not under supervision; think of various high profile murders that occur in the US regularly. Hell, think of all the school shootings! A kid isn’t able to legally own or buy a firearm, hell purchasing a firearm is about the most strict customer filtering you can get outside of more specialized goods, and kids still get their hands on them all the time, so clearly putting the onus on a business to filter it’s customers when it can’t even see them is going to be much more difficult to enforce.