this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
778 points (99.5% liked)

RetroGaming

19649 readers
787 users here now

Vintage gaming community.

Rules:

  1. Be kind.
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
778
Nintendo Targets YouTube Accounts Showing Emulated Games (www.retronews.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
216 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Nintendo has been actively taking down YouTube videos that feature its games being emulated or modded, which has sparked significant discussion and concern within the gaming community.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

In the same stroke though the onus to supply backing to any given position or assertion is on the one claiming facts. Else one can go around claiming anything they want and just yell at others to "google it".

This one is easily found out through a simple search and all but burden of proof isn't on the one asking for proof, it's on the one making the assertion. If they want to verify the proof, then that's on them of course.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In the same stroke though the onus to supply backing to any given position or assertion is on the one claiming facts.

Valve supporting gaming on Linux is common knowledge here. For very niche knowledge or hard to google terms, I'd agree but there's a limit. One cannot expect to cite sources for every single bit of common knowledge.

This one is easily found out through a simple search and all but burden of proof isn’t on the one asking for proof

The amount of work required to ask for a source is similar to googling it directly, maybe asking is even more work because usually selecting the claim and then right-click --> "Search web for XYZ" works just fine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah I agree they should have just looked it up because it's easy to check. Just was disagreeing that it's their responsibility to prove it. Their responsibilities are verifying and they failed. It was a stupid pedantic point and I probably shouldn't have bothered. Sorry if I ruffled feathers. Typed before I thought.