• DarthYoshiBoy@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    As I heard it, the fact that they were heavily implying (and often delivering) versions of the emulator that worked with as yet unreleased games for Patreon backers exclusively while the ‘open to everyone’ version was not as compatible, is what probably did them in.

    It would have been pretty hard for them to argue that their emulator was for legal means when they were constantly telling people to pay up for the Patreon to get access to builds optimized for games that hadn’t yet gone on sale. If they had just kept the public in parity with the Patreon and just coincidentally had performance uplifts on upcoming games before they dropped, they’d probably have been fine. As it is, they painted a pretty compelling picture that they were “pay for piracy” and that’s where the lawyers probably told them to take a deal and get out.

    • IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s was naive of them to think they could get away with making optimizations for games that haven’t been released yet as long as it’s behind a paywall. As if Nintendo didn’t make a Patreon account and sub to them to collect evidence for their case.

      The moment they even touched the ROMs of unreleased games they were engaging in piracy.

    • Alto@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Maybe it’s just a case of hindsight being 20/20, but it in some ways really feels like they were borderline asking to get sued.