Gaming miscellany

Nintendo is once again pushing hard to retain its status as the least consumer-friendly gaming company on Earth.

I've written about their overly-aggressive lawyers and hideously misguided policies before on this site, but this time I'm explicitly recommending that NOBODY purchase a Nintendo Switch 2 when it's released in the coming weeks.

And why am I going that far? Because Nintendo will brick (i.e. render unusable) your expensive toy remotely if you dare to do anything on a long list of things that tinkerers, hobbyists, and gamers are legally allowed to do with hardware they own.

The list of prohibited activities includes the usual stuff, such as circumventing its anti-piracy protections and pirating its games. Those are bad enough. But then there’s this: you cannot publish, copy, modify, reverse engineer, lease, rent, decompile, disassemble, distribute, offer for sale, or create derivative works of any portion of the Nintendo Account Services.

And again, your punishment if you dare to tinker in any way with your property is for your device to be bricked by Nintendo.

Dear Nintendo: I hope some day you realize that letting lawyers run the company is extremely destructive to consumer good-will. I for one will never, ever even consider purchasing anything made by Nintendo.

I think most gamers have come to accept that they will sometimes need to upgrade their PC hardware to run the latest games. We understand that since the quality and quantity of visual and audio resources required by top tier games continues to increase, so will the requirements for graphics processors (GPU), CPU, and memory.

Of course, we can often delay the inevitable, by running games at less than their maximum settings. But those of us lucky enough to be able to afford regular hardware upgrades will often happily pay for a new GPU if it means we can run the latest new games.

But now, according to The Verge, at least two major game developers are saying that we will also be required to run their upcoming titles on solid state drives (SSDs).

Bethesda’s first new IP in 25 years, Starfield, will require 125GB of SSD storage when it debuts on September 6th. It’s not a recommendation — it’s a minimum spec to play Starfield on a PC.

CD Projekt Red also revealed that it’s bumping the minimum specs of Cyberpunk 2077 to require an SSD at minimum and phasing out HDD support.

Have you ever noticed that some high end games load faster than others? And that games from certain companies seem to consistently suffer from slow load times? What that tells me is that the developers working on those games haven't figured out how to load game resources efficiently.

So the way I interpret these announcements from Bethesda and CD Projekt Red is that they're giving up on ever figuring out how to load and manage large amounts of resource data efficiently. Instead, they're adding to the already significant pressure on gamers to buy new hardware.

I don't imagine we'll see much pushback from gamers on this. These days, gamers with high end gaming rigs are already using SSDs. Most new pre-built PCs now come with SSDs.

But wouldn't it make sense to allow these games to be installed on and run from HDDs, and then show an alert to the user, to the effect that load times would be greatly improved by running from an SSD? Why force the issue, potentially angering and alienating potential customers?

Any organization, given enough time, will eventually become corrupt, or at least lose touch with the ideas of its founders. Once a company is being run by lawyers and MBAs, there's a good chance that they'll try to wring every last dollar out of their customers, in any way possible, regardless of the potential for damage.

Such is the case with Nintendo, where the desire to drain customers and treat them like criminals knows no bounds.

The latest atrocity committed by Nintendo, in a long, sad list of similar behaviour, was their recent takedown of hundreds of videos on Youtube, on a YouTube channel called GilvaSunner. The reason provided by Nintendo was unauthorized use of music from Nintendo games. This is a clear case of fair use, and if GilvaSunner had unlimited resources to spend on lawyers, they might be able to win in a legal fight against Nintento. But that's not the case, and the videos are not likely to see the light of day ever again.

What a huge win for Nintendo, right? I mean, think of all the terrible things that would happen if Nintendo allowed its fans to show their appreciation. Like... um... nope, can't think of a single one. In fact, it's been clearly demonstrated that companies that support and encourage fan endeavours always benefit. The problem is that these benefits are difficult to quantify, and in business school, one learns that intangibles are best ignored. So on the off chance that a single penny will be saved, we get this kind of hostility.

Screw you, Nintendo.

What is it about Nintendo that makes them want to destroy the work of their biggest fans? It seems like the more love and effort you pour into a game port or remake of a game (all without any kind of compensation, aside from glory), the more likely it is that Nintendo will shut you down. Usually that happens when all your work is done and you finally publish. Sometimes Nintendo even approves your work in advance, only to shut you down anyway later on.

The latest move from Nintendo's "crack" legal team is to shut down a Commodore 64 port of Super Mario Brothers. Seven years in the making, there's no conceivable way that this work would ever hurt Nintendo's bottom line, or set some kind of legal or copyright precedent if it was allowed to live. But bullies be bullies, and Nintendo is one of the all-time worst. Seriously, screw Nintendo, and screw their idiot laywers.

The good news is that anyone involved with the emulator and ROM scenes is probably going to have no trouble finding the game. It just won't be available on any site that's easy for the legal geniuses at Nintendo to find.

I paid my way through university with contract programming, writing for Computist, and developing and selling software. My first software product was Ultimaker II, an Apple II program that allows Ultima II players to print maps and edit their character. Customers included folks in Japan, the UK, and Scandinavia.

Recently, I was poking around in the indispensible Internet Archive, which now includes video, audio, and print archives, and discovered a review for Ultimaker II in the December 1983 issue of the Washington Apple Pi Journal.

I had no idea Ultimaker II was ever reviewed! In case you were wondering, it's positive: "Overall, this reviewer found Ultimaker II to be helpful indeed in enhancing the play of Ultima 2."

This is somewhat old news, as it was first reported in October 2017. However, I just found out about it, and it affects my plans for a JDRGaming modern combat server.

Up until a few days ago, I had planned to start running a modern combat server, using the ReviveBF2 client/launcher/server. The idea was to run the server on a trial basis and hopefully attract some interest from fans of my other servers.

Then I learned the Revive Network folks had received a warning letter from EA, which owns the rights to the Battlefield games. EA's main complaint was that Revive Network was distributing Battlefield game client software to anyone who cared to download it.

Background: when Gamespy shuttered in 2015, playing Battlefield 2 online with the official client software became effectively impossible. Enterprising folks found ways to modify the client (and server) software to use new, unofficial master server browsers, and once again online play was possible. Three basic approaches were used to accomplish this: create a new client based on the original (e.g. Forgotten Hope 2); develop patches that modify Battlefield client software (e.g. BF2Hub); or modify the original client and make that available to users. Revive Network chose the latter approach, and that's what earned them EA's letter.

Leaving aside any arguments about rights associated with abandoned software like Battlefield 2, it seems to me that Revive Network could have resolved this issue by simply doing what EA asked: stop making Battlefield game client software available from their site. They could have just switched to the patching approach, so that people with Battlefield clients could modify them to work with the new unofficial master servers. Instead, Revive Network chose to shut down.

With ReviveBF2 and the associated master server no longer available, I started looking for alternatives, and found BF2Hub. It's a free launcher for BF2 that works with most available mods, and automates the process of patching your BF2 client to work with BF2Hub's master server.

My tests with BF2Hub were a complete success. As a result, BF2Hub is now the launcher of choice for all JDRGaming BF2 servers except for Forgotten Hope 2, which has its own launcher. The two launchers don't interfere with each other at all. I've posted the BF2Hub launcher on the JDRGaming Files page.

I am currently testing the Hard Justice BF2 mod for use with BF2Hub. You may notice HJ running on the BF2 server occasionally over the coming weeks. Forgotten Hope 2 is still the default mod for the JDRGaming BF2 server, but I'm considering designating one day per week for modern combat, and Hard Justice is looking like the best option available.

See you on the battlefield!

Nintendo can't make their retro gaming consoles fast enough to meet demand, thereby disproving (unintentionally of course) the myth that people pirate games simply because they 'want stuff for free'. All of those old console games are widely available as ROM downloads that run in console emulation software on PCs. If playing for free was the issue, surely those consoles wouldn't be flying off the shelves.

Game developers are slowly but surely coming to understand that having their games available for free is not the disaster anti-piracy crusaders would have us believe. Jacob Janerka discovered his game Paradigm on torrent sites, but instead of going legal and trying to get the torrents removed or hosting sites shut down, he decided to embrace what is essentially free promotion and distribution for the game. He reached out to thousands of potential customers in the comments for the game's torrent on The Pirate Bay, saying:

"Hey everyone, I’m Jacob the creator of Paradigm. I know some of you legitimately can’t afford the game and I’m glad you get to still play it :D If you like the game, please tell your friends and maybe even consider buying it later."

Some developers are even making free torrents of their games available themselves. Acid Wizard Studio recently did this for their popular horror title Darkwood. From the notes accompanying the torrent:

This is the latest version of Darkwood... Completely DRM-free. There's no catch, no added pirate hats for characters or anything like that. We have just one request: if you like Darkwood and want us to continue making games, consider buying it in the future, maybe on a sale, through Steam, GOG or Humble Store. But please, please, don't buy it through any key reselling site. By doing that, you're just feeding the cancer that is leeching off this industry.

Other game developers are rediscovering one of the earliest computer game sales strategies: give away the first few hours of gameplay. A related strategy is to make early versions of a game available for free, and that's what Indiegala has done with their new game Die Young.

Of course it's the bigger studios -- the ones with high-paid executives and teams of lawyers eager to prove their worth -- who insist on direct compensation for their productions. Studios like Capcom, which recently issued a takedown request for a series of playthrough videos for the Capcom game Dai Gyakuten Saiban. The game is a spinoff of Ace Attorney, and only released in Japan. All language in the game is Japanese, but English subtitles were added to the posted videos. It's difficult to imagine how something like this could be a threat to Capcom, and yet they insisted the videos be removed from Youtube.

Copy protection (aka DRM) software Denuvo suffered perhaps its most devastating setback when the game Total War: Warhammer 2, 'protected' by Denuvo, was recently cracked within hours of its release. When Resident Evil 7 was cracked earlier this year, Denuvo Marketing Director Thomas Goebl stated that "some protection was better than nothing." I wonder what he'll say now. And I wonder why anyone still bothers to waste money on copy protection, especially Denuvo.

Some game companies understand that modding extends the life of a game, and embrace the idea. Others are somewhat less enlightened.

Take-Two Interactive, makers of the Grand Theft Auto series, recently sent a threat letter to the developers of a popular GTA4 modding tool called OpenIV. Lacking the resources to fight the threat, the OpenIV folks stopped distribution of the tool. Fans of the tool -- and the game -- are furious.

Dear idiots at Take-Two: this was a stupid move. You're going to lose far more business and consumer goodwill than you could ever hope to (somehow?) save by shutting down this tool. Here's a suggestion: stop letting your lawyers guide your business decisions.

I'm almost starting to feel sorry for the folks who make Denuvo, the widely-despised DRM (copy protection) software.

RiME developer Tequila Works said they wanted DRM because if the game was cracked it could mess up the experience, but they also said if the game was cracked they would release a version without Denuvo DRM. The game was almost immediately cracked, and Tequila Works now says they will make good on their promise, but also that the DRM was never their idea anyway.

The person largely responsible for cracking RiME described the excessive number of calls being made to the Denuvo protection just in the game's startup and loading screens. He speculates that complaints about the game's performance by paying customers were almost certainly related to these ramped up -- and, ultimately, fruitless -- efforts to prevent the game from being cracked.

Meanwhile, Denuvo itself was recently accused of using unlicensed software. In the world of DRM, this is known as 'stealing'. Denuvo's DRM uses code supposedly licensed from a company called VMProtect. But Denuvo's license was not sufficient for their use, and VMProtect went public. Denuvo must have had a little chat with VMProtect, because now the latter is saying "DENUVO GmbH had the right to use our software in the past and has the right to use it currently as well as in the future." Which is amusing, in that it allows for Denuvo having been improperly licensed for some amount of time in the past.

And finally, a hacking group known as 'SteamPunks' created a key generator that could potentially allow for very straightforward workarounds for any game protected by Denuvo. If it turns out to work as claimed, this is likely to put the final nail in Denuvo's coffin.

Nintendo just can't stop shooting itself in the foot. In 2015, the company successfully prevented a fan from distributing a game he created (originally known as Zelda Maker) in response to Nintendo ruling out creating such a game itself. Unperturbed, that fan remade the game, staying clear of Nintendo's branding, and is now successfully selling that game as Legend Maker. Of course, everyone knows it's really Zelda Maker. Congratulations, Nintendo: your clumsy efforts to crush the spirit of one of your biggest fans has backfired, as usual.