Again, I mean no offense, but you’re looking at it from a managerial perspective and likely overlooking things that stand out to people. Pay alone is rarely ever enough incentive for people in skilled professions, especially highly desirable ones. I make great money doing what I love, but I could be making more…

You’re ignoring the obvious. The real question is, has any other company dealt with an older version of their software being modified and played in a tournament that people profit off of? That answer is... no. Hence the circumstances of the situation putting Nintendo in this position where no one else has been in.

The problem is, the thing you’re against here is something you should be for, a company (or person) protecting what they created by not letting someone else manipulate it and then use it in a public setting where they make money off of it. Thinking that just because Nintendo isn’t harmed by something like this that…

It’s not about proving whether the mods hurt Nintendo’s brand, it’s about someone using Nintendo’s brand without their permission in a public setting and making a profit off of it. You would likely, and quite possibly literally, be laughed out of court for this.

Other companies would have if their property were being used in a way they didn’t intend, like in this case. Just because Nintendo is the only one to sue over these circumstances doesn’t mean other companies wouldn’t have done the same. It’s more about the circumstance being extremely rare than companies not being…

You think boomers kept working because they wanted to? Boomers do keep working for financial reasons, but the very least of which is divorce.

Right, streamlining teaching with no regard for how different students may need to be taught. That sounds exactly like you have no clue about what teachers have to deal with to actually teach students to be human beings knowledgeable in useful information and skills and not be mindless zombies full of facts to pass a…

Regardless of any semantic arguments you try to introduce, because Nintendo owns Smash Bros they have every right to protect it. It’s not about how someone may interpret their brand, it’s about protecting it in all situations, and not just the one’s they don’t like.

Except in this case the bully has every legal precedent to protect what is theirs, and Smash Bros is their brand. You’re trying to demonize Nintendo for protecting its property, but they’re doing exactly what any other company would do in their situation.

Your examples don’t add up. Modifying your car isn’t the same as modifying a video game, taking it to a popular video game tournament and making a profit off said tournament. This is 100% about profiting off of the modification and Nintendo not approving it because they don’t want their brand potentially tainted by…

Exactly, it may not be pirating, but using a Nintendo game in a way that wasn’t intended in a public setting where they’ll make profits off of the tournament is obviously not a good idea. They have every right to protect THEIR brand by preventing this sort of activity.

This is an incredibly asinine way of looking at things by basing it off what you think teachers should be doing. Just because you see teachers “doing nothing” during the day doesn’t mean their days are full of that when they don’t have kids to teach.

You don’t think management is responsible for people treating certain jobs like that in that way? 

Unfortunately that’s how the internet works. The first idiot posting something is usually the one benefiting the most regardless of how accurate they are. 

This claim that it would be easy with literally zero insight as to how they could actually do it that wouldn’t screw over users or developers is pretty ignorant. Further, this is the first we’re hearing of a developer complaining about this yet how long has the refund system been implemented? It may sound shitty, but…

Agreed, this is possibly the worst advice in how to deal with this.

Then it should be presented as enterprise advice. Suggesting that users disable their USB ports on their home computers to prevent this attack is like telling people that instead of locking your door when you leave the house you should just not have things people want to steal.

Then it should be presented as enterprise advice. Suggesting that users disable their USB ports on their home computers to prevent this attack is like telling people that instead of locking your door when you leave the house you should just not have things people want to steal. 

Agreed, this is only going to lead to bigger issues for people than actually helping them prevent the problem that is so minor for the average user not in a corporate environment. 

I think that was kind of the point that it was slanted, especially after how they were not only treated in the media, but by the NBA to appease the media. Their story deserved to be heard.