|
Pemalite said: |
Sure, Gabe picked it up. You seem to be thinking he just immediately slapped his logo on it and released it on Xbox 360. I'm sure they got EA to put their logo on it just because Gabe felt like donating some of the profits to EA instead of keeping them all for himself, right? Or, maybe it was because it was a fuckload of work to port that game to a console and pass certification. Or do you think that just happened with positive thinking?
... Maybe there's a different set of standard to make a PC game vs a console which is exactly what I keep touching on, and you continue to conveniently ignore.
| Pemalite said:
On what planet does that even make sense? |
It makes perfect sense on a planet where someone presents you a house to buy and without an inspection, or any documentation from any third party that certifies that everything was done to code. So if you buy it, you have to tear apart all of the walls, and roofing, and siding, and insulation, and electrical panels, and outlets and plumbing, and flooring, and ducting, and dig around the house to make sure the waterproofing was done correctly to make sure it is all done to code and your standards. Because when you buy that house, and sell it to someone else with your name on it, you're responsible for any repairs that need to be done to that house, and any personal items that might get damage as a result of faulty work.
It might just be better to just built your own house and know it's done right from the get-go.
| Pemalite said:
There is no real way to answer this as every hack/mod attempt that has given hackers access to custom firmware on consoles has actually been different. |
Almost every meaningful exploit on a console that allowed a hacker to install a custom OS was done by fooling the system to thinking it was running signed code. Sure, some of them featured hacking the firmware of components within the console, or hotwiring some additional hardware into the system that fucks with the console in a dozen different ways. But the ones using software only, that didn't involve opening up your console? Almost all of them were signed code exploits.
It's wonderful that you think that a "walled garden" approach will just solve everything. But we all know that simply isn't the case, is it? It's hilarious that you think Nintendo didn't try that with consoles like the DS, 3DS, Wii and Wii U. Because they did. Sony tried the same thing with it's hypervisor on the PS3, and that was blown wide open. Sure, maybe the X1 hasn't been torn to shreds yet, but that's probably just a matter of time. But let's just stick with Nintendo. As mentioned, Nintendo has had pretty much every console they've every made completely decimated by hackers and modders. The Wii, Wii U, NDS and 3DS all were completely opened up by signed code exploits with a "walled garden" style of security. So yes Nintendo should be worried about those kinds of things happening on their platforms, because it happens all the time already!
| Pemalite said:
They really don't have a choice in the matter. |
Well they keep trying to convinve their investors that they do, and they spend a lot of time and money in trying to prevent that from happening. Otherwise they might as well just let their consoles play games burnt on Blu-rays straight out of the box.
| Pemalite said:
|
You still haven't given an example of a fan developing a console game and an IP owner taking that game and releasing it on the console offically basically untouched. So what is representative of Nintendo "curating games"? Because this seems to be a concept that has no basis in reality.
| Pemalite said:
Microsoft has been very successfull in not allowing for malicious stuff on the Xbox, despite having tools that are cheap and easy to access to build games for the platform. - They don't look at every line of code in a game before release either do they? |
Yeah? And? Microsoft also doesn't publish fan made Halo games on Xbox One without so much as looking under the hood as you suggest Nintendo should do. You need to demonstrate that this is safe to do so, and it can't be used as means of injecting unsigned code into a system any more than a save file exploit is used today. Aside from that, the steam certification process is vastly different than the console certification. The console process in a lot more stringent and tediious than making sure your game opens up the steam menu, and gives out packs of cards. And yes, if MS does find something they fear may be malicious, they can ask to look at your source code, or parts of your source code at least.
| Pemalite said:
I do fully understand Intellectual Property Rights, but you have obviously missed my point completely and taken everything out of context. |
Kinda odd that you think you can claim to fully understand IP rights, but think it's totally okay to make money off of a product that uses IP that you have no rights to. To me, that demonstrates that you fail to even have a basic understanding of IP rights. But that's just me though.
