Yes, but it is also a bit scary / dystopian that a $62 billion company would go to such great lengths to have one of their own customers thrown in jail for using the product that he paid for in a way that wasn't hurting anyone.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 65 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

He didn't just use the product he paid for in a way that doesn't hurt anybody, he sold pirated Nintendo Switch games. This is literally at the start of the article.

It then becomes very easy to say he took revenue from Nintendo (the "they wouldn't have bought it if it cost money" argument doesn't apply), but above all selling pirated material is a shitty thing to do.

[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 55 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Yep. He sold ROMs. I have no sympathy for privateers in "the scene."

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think he quite did that, actually. From memory he ran a few "shops", but these didn't really sell anything and were just download portals to install pirated games directly from the internet (rather than downloading to a PC first and then copying to an SD card or installing over USB). However, I think he did take donations for early access to new titles, which would have been hard to get elsewhere at first.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

However, I think he did take donations for early access to new titles,

When video game companies accept money for early access to their games, that's a sale. You give them money, they give you access. I'm not sure why that wouldn't also apply here.

From your description, unless you were allowed to donate $0 for access, that sounds a lot like a sale to me.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)