Every competitor to a Nintendo handheld has had the same approach for 33 years. More powerful. More expensive. In 33 years that strategy has worked a grand total of...0 times. Every time a bunch of dumb people keep saying this is the time and the argument is always the same. because it's more powerful. It's a broken record now.

We were here a decade ago https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/10/22/the-playstation-vita-is-set-to-succeed

Nokia Ngage was going to be the Game Boy killer.

PSP was going to beat Nintendo DS as people claimed it a portable PS2 (not quite right)

I find it funny this never ends but the result is always the same. Nintendo outsells by a large margine. Next cylce it all starts again.

As for the emulation debate. There has been a series of Handhelds that have been used for just that. The Game Park. They've been making them since 2003 and others like it. They never make much of a dent. It's really a non factor as a selling point in the large picture.

They refuse to learn the facts, and one thing awesome is Valve planned to give away their SteamOS 3.0 to their competitors and the users as well for free in the future when they're done with the optimization.

Steam Deck is just a complete optional, it's only a PC in handheld form, so, great for hardcore porn gamers lol. Therefore, Valve isn't competing with Nintendo.

Because I said the Steam Deck doesn't play Nintendo games, which is a big deal for me...  and people want to argue it does (legally) play Switch games...  and yes, it plays out the same way every time.  

Exclusives, IMHO, matter.  Nintendo first party games is a huge plus for the Switch, people simply want to argue against that.

I propose a motion to overwrite this thread title and turn it into a full debate about copyright, emulation, law enforcement, console practices and discussion about what's the limit for commercial agreements and where they stand against law 

Cheers

Wouldn't it make more sense to start a new thread? 

We are already debating on this one, why create another ?

*Insert insult to the OP* (That video title is serious clickbait though.)

First off, the text that you're quoting isn't from the DMCA, and that text does not appear on the page they are linking to, so I don't know where they are pulling it from. The page it links to is about embroidery software of all things. 

Chrkeller is correct. You are buying a license to use the software, not the software itself. This is actually explained on the  embroidery software site that they link to there, but the best case would be Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. There was also a case with Blizzard and some weird WOW software that plays for you. And, you can just google and you'll find plenty of places. There was also a case where a website was trying to sell used MP3s, and the fact that users had to delete the original didn't matter. 

There's really no question that if you buy software and the agreement says it's a license, it's a license. Whether that should or should not be the case, it is. Two parties can generally make whatever agreement they want on the terms of the sale. What you do not own is the copyright, that is the right to make a copy. 

With all that being said, it's important to keep in mind that copying something, even when you do not have the copyright or permission from the copyright holder, is generally not illegal in and of itself. Copyright law is about situations where content is somehow being displayed to a third party. So, you don't exactly have a specific right to make a copy for your own personal use, but you don't really need one because it is not explicitly illegal. Just on the level of common sense, if nobody knows about it, a) how would anyone ever know to prosecute you, and b) what damages could they claim? Where you could get in trouble is if you are either using the software without a license, or you are distributing the software to a third party.

So, based on my one semester of internet law, I am not aware of anywhere in the DMCA or anywhere else that specifically gives you the right to make a copy, but copyright law in generally does not impose any penalties until there is some distribution or display to a third party. So, realistically, you can and I don't believe anyone has ever or will ever be sued for a true personal use copy. 

But anyway, I find this argument disingenuous. I don't know how it came up this particular time, so I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but when we debate emulation, are we really ever talking about someone backing up games they actually own? Are the people looking into steam deck for emulation really people looking to play their Switch games in higher definition or whatever? I'm sure we can find some people who want to do that (and I've definitely emulated games I own just to avoid busting out old systems), but really when we debate emulation its about people using it to steal games. 

Actually no, and that is what I argue the whole time. First of all, putting 'objectively' and 'better' in one sentence does not make sense, because 'better' is always a question of 'for who' or 'for which use'. People play games, not technical spec sheets, therefore the technical specs while they might be interesting are not relevant. 'Better' means more value for that person and use. For instance: the fastest car is not always better than a slower car for people. Other considerations like practicality and comfort are much more relevant. To make it painful obvious: a formula 1 racecar is faster than any street car, but it holds no value for private users in daily life.

Nintendo didn't fool people to reach these sales with the Switch, the system has actually value for a lot of gamers. It also isn't down to brand-power or legacy, how much that does we saw with the WiiU. The value as gaming system stems from other things. Switch is both used as a home console and a mobile device. As it does both and seamlessly at that, that already has value. With Switch I can actually keep gaming while arriving at home with the same game. Steam Deck is only one, except I fumble around with additional cables.

But the more interesting part is on the mobile side. Steam Deck only supports mobile. And yet people that say they prefer Steam Deck over Switch usually don't own either, as they are dislike handheld gaming from the get go. So let's consider value for actual handheld gamers. People tend to have different tastes, but there are usually points they tend to gravitate towards. We can expect a bell curve going out from a sweet spot in values, with the most people liking stuff at this sweet spot and less and less people liking it as we move further away. People also are willing to accept a little deviation from their personal preferences, but usually choose something that is closer to their tastes.

If we look at size and weight, then the 3DS must have been hitting that sweet spot or being pretty close. It did had a lot of different models, which were different in size, so the sweet spot must have been somewhere in there, considering it's sales. If we also take the DS into account, it had similar (or somewhat smaller) model sizes to at least a few 3DS models. Switch moves away in one direction. The two models (or three with OLED) it does have are not much of a difference and both are bigger than any 3DS model, it is clear they are already away from that sweet spot for handheld gamers. But there is no current gen alternative, that is smaller, so handheld gamers are willing to take that or have to give up on current gen gaming altogether. The Steam Deck is even further away in size. While there may be gamers who prefer this form factor, they are at the outer end of the bell curve and therefore only few. Everyone closer to the sweet spot may find not an ideal form factor in Switch, but a better one than Steam Deck.

So yes, Steam Deck may be better for a few persons, but in the demographic actually willing to purchase a handheld gaming system, the Switch holds more value for much more people. So for them 'objectively' the Switch is better.

Now, there are always people mixing up specs with value. At all times some people declare: The Turbo-Grafx is better than the SNES! The N64 is better than the PS1! The Xbox is better than a PS2! The Vita is better than a 3DS! And they all seem again and again and again surprised, that specs don't actually equate to value for the majority of people, the same as the majority don't use a racecar to drive to work.

I stand by what I said on page 1.. software matters, the switch has exclusive software, thus it is my preferred system.