4 ms·

What's sad is they don't just release the entire SNES/NES library for people who buy into their Nintendo online service. It's shameful how they've treated peopl

What's sad is they don't just release the entire SNES/NES library for people who buy into their Nintendo online service. It's shameful how they've treated people who have bought and rebought into previous iterations only to have their libraries wiped out with new hardware generations. I'm looking at you virtual console.

Talanes 7y ago
They don't have rights to the entire library, but yeah, just release everything you own on there at once and move on to ironing out N64.
- derefr 7y ago
  It's not just about what they own; it's also about what they think they can get away with bundling into "collections" alongside spiritual sequels/HD remasters/etc. (S)NES Online is just for everything left over after the other departments slice the IP up for remixing.
  - Talanes 7y ago
    And then they don't seem to have any real sense of urgency at actually making those collections. Earthbound is obviously missing so they can do a big bundle collection, but also their not confident enough in it to put the resources into translating Mother 3.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
What's truly shameful is the fact these 30+ year old games are still protected by copyright. Nintendo and all the third party developers have already made their money many times over. It's time for these works to enter the public domain.
- rhinoceraptor 7y ago
  Also, none of these companies would even be able to sell old games if it weren't for amazing developers writing the emulators (and people playing pirated games on them). All these games would be lost forever.
- imtringued 7y ago
  I personally dislike the fact that copyright is tied to the person rather than the release year. It results in a lot of ugly compromises in copyright. The idea behind authors life + 70 years is that you don't want to discourage old people but if copyright was based on the release date none of this would matter.
  - matheusmoreira 7y ago
    70 years is way too much. It should be something like 10 years. The idea is to give creators appropriate reward and then release works into the public domain. 10 years is more than enough time to make a fortune off of one's creations. They should have to invent new stuff if they want more money. What happens today is creators want to strike gold once and then enjoy a lifetime of royalties for themselves and their children. When was the last time something entered the public domain? Probably in the early 20th century. Public domain might as well be a forgotten footnote of history. There's no reason for the public to recognize copyright as legitimate when it's being systematically robbed of its rights. What if the copyright is owned by a company? I don't know. Do they have to go bankrupt for the 70 year count to start? In any case, they'll probably just lobby for even more extensions before their terms run out anyway.

Talanes 7y ago

They don't have rights to the entire library, but yeah, just release everything you own on there at once and move on to ironing out N64.

derefr 7y ago
It's not just about what they own; it's also about what they think they can get away with bundling into "collections" alongside spiritual sequels/HD remasters/etc. (S)NES Online is just for everything left over after the other departments slice the IP up for remixing.
- Talanes 7y ago
  And then they don't seem to have any real sense of urgency at actually making those collections. Earthbound is obviously missing so they can do a big bundle collection, but also their not confident enough in it to put the resources into translating Mother 3.

matheusmoreira 7y ago

What's truly shameful is the fact these 30+ year old games are still protected by copyright. Nintendo and all the third party developers have already made their money many times over. It's time for these works to enter the public domain.

rhinoceraptor 7y ago
Also, none of these companies would even be able to sell old games if it weren't for amazing developers writing the emulators (and people playing pirated games on them). All these games would be lost forever.
imtringued 7y ago
I personally dislike the fact that copyright is tied to the person rather than the release year. It results in a lot of ugly compromises in copyright. The idea behind authors life + 70 years is that you don't want to discourage old people but if copyright was based on the release date none of this would matter.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  70 years is way too much. It should be something like 10 years. The idea is to give creators appropriate reward and then release works into the public domain. 10 years is more than enough time to make a fortune off of one's creations. They should have to invent new stuff if they want more money. What happens today is creators want to strike gold once and then enjoy a lifetime of royalties for themselves and their children. When was the last time something entered the public domain? Probably in the early 20th century. Public domain might as well be a forgotten footnote of history. There's no reason for the public to recognize copyright as legitimate when it's being systematically robbed of its rights. What if the copyright is owned by a company? I don't know. Do they have to go bankrupt for the 70 year count to start? In any case, they'll probably just lobby for even more extensions before their terms run out anyway.