Those aren’t real words - it’s Japanese.

They don’t need to be. It’s their property; they can do what they want with it. They can be totally arbitrary and capricious if they wish. That’s their prerogative.

Just like how the developer has the freedom to put whatever he wants to in his game, Twitch is free to keep whatever they want from appearing on their service. Just because they’re the largest and most visible service doesn’t mean that they’re a public accommodation - they’re a private entity and they’re free to keep…

I wouldn’t act like an asshole on the forums, so I wouldn’t have that issue.

Ban them from Steam altogether, not just the forums. They may wake up when they lose access to their entire library. They need to hit rock bottom to become human beings, apparently.

Sorry, the pronouns did confuse me. I apologize.

That’s the point - the people who believe they’re within their “legal rights” to put things online are usually horribly wrong and don’t truly understand the subject. It’s millions of people suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

“Unfortunately, sharing Wii U gameplay videos on YouTube was a nightmare in 2015, thanks to Nintendo’s draconian stance on copyright claims.”

Science forbid if a person or company defends their legal rights! They should just let consumers violate their rights and do whatever they want with their creations, right?

I have…

It’s people on the internet and their reactions to business decisions that make me shy away from ever calling myself a “gamer” again. I don’t want to be associated with that level of vitriol and idiocy.

Wouldn’t “New Game Plus+++++++” be New Game+8? I mean, there are eight pluses - one in English and 7 more symbols...

It’s not really nonsense - it’s the copyright holder’s exclusive right to control distribution. Other people don’t have the right to distribute the holder’s work absent a license.

Right now, I work for my own law practice. The TV show and radio show I had are no longer a going concern - format changes.

“They are simply pointing out the games that these publishers play.”

That asks the question: WHY are they pointing it out? They’re relating the story to the public, therefore it’s a Public Relations piece.

This entire article is a RP game on behalf of Kotaku. Kotaku isn’t entitled to get early copies of games, nor are they entitled to responses from publishers. They’re bringing the issue to the forefront in some sort of PR game themselves.

Entertainment “reporting” is entirely PR-based. To expect otherwise is folly.

It’s reality. Worry about what is and not some unobtainable ideal.

You mean like this?

How could people be “bamboozled” by a game if the review is available after release? We’re talking about early leaks about internal projects, not issues with finalized products.

This isn’t news reporting, though. It’s entertainment reporting. It’s a completely different animal. This is a unique situation, where the development teams are actually beholden to the press for some of their compensation: bonuses are tied into Metacritic scores nowadays. There’s a symbiosis that doesn’t usually…

If you’re pissing off large developers and getting access to them cut off, are you really serving your readers? Or are you sacrificing long-term relationships for a short-term boost to page hits?

Sure, it’s news. Sure, readers will want to know. But sometimes discretion is the better part of valor...and sometimes…

And didn’t follow the correct procedures for getting it.