​

The troubles keep coming for Super Seducer creator Richard La Ruina. After having the latest title, Super Seducer 3, banned for sale on Steam, the proposed Nintendo Switch ports were also rejected on April 1. In order to recoup some of the porting costs, La Ruina has decided to sell the Nintendo Switch version of the first game as a ROM through an auction on rarible.com. Advertised as "possibly the rarest video game ever," the auction states that the game will never be officially released on Switch and no digital or physical copies exist, aside from the developer's. Presumably, you will need a Switch with custom firmware to run the ROM, though no specific details have been given at this point.

An NFT is a non-fungible token. It uses blockchain technology similar to cryptocurrencies, but each token is unique, granting the buyer digital goods. The owner of an NFT does not gain the copyright of the item, only the right to resell the token on the blockchain. If one of these NFTs are purchased, it would be up to the owners whether they wanted to release it publicly or keep it for themselves.

Source

 

[Bladexdsl]

rarest until the rom is uploaded to the internet which is going to happen

 

[RedBlueGreen]

This has got to be a breach of contract. You can't get a Switch dev kit unless you sign a bunch of contracts and NDAs, and while I've never seen one, I can't imagine distributing a ROM like this is something Nintendo would let you do.

Maybe they used something other than a devkit. I dunno what the agreements for Unity, Unreal, and CryEngine are like, but they could've used one of those, or any other engine that supports programing Switch titles. So far what I've seen on the developer's Twitter account has only mentioned "porting costs", which could mean the cost of either the pro version of Unity, or Game Maker, or any other engine that supports Switch that requires an initial fee instead of taking part of your revenue.

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

I am just in complete and utter confusion

 

[Deleted member 534570]

Would Nintendo allow that to continue?

 

[eyeliner]

I call bullshit on Steam for banning this game, as I recently, for some reason beyond my comprehension, landed of a "dating sim" game that was nothing more than a game of 3D animated characters having explicit sex. It was supposed to be a DATING SIM, but it was instead a fornication simulator.

It was in alpha or some stuff, so I don't know if it came to be or it is still there. I tried to scavenge the link, but alas, try as I might, I can't find that.

Type "Escort Simulator" on Steam, for example.

So yeah, I can bullshit. And Nintendo too, with the amount of visual novels with scantily clad characters all around, Like Prison Princess and crap like that.

So yeah, because of these behaviours of policing some content and not others, I less and less purchase games in those storefronts.

 

[Deleted User]

Well you need a portable version, you need a wing man while you do your seducing if you don't know what you're doing.

 

[FAST6191]

Imagine showing this sentence to someone from 2010

Not the worst thing as far as future words/phrases go. If they are of the economics persuasion then expanding nft into non fungible token might even be speculated upon (money is fungible being economics/finance/accounting 101), and bitcoin was already a thing with some nerd cred too and mt gox was a thing by this point.
The idea of an authenticity/ownership certificate being held in a secure database would likely not have been that radical either -- online activation of software was a thing long before then (2009 even seeing Microsoft do a variation on the theme for the 360 https://www.mcvuk.com/business-news/publishing/will-360-games-on-demand-worry-retail/ , though would be 2011 that we saw the PSP street be launched, everybody having long got used to flash carts on the DS as well) and ownership of certificates was also simultaneously a thing many companies got to contend with for their fancy software too.

Better add to the explanations of NFTs thing too

 

[m_babble]

Douchebag ups douche ante.

 

[Sonic Angel Knight]

I wish nintendo sold roms, then people wouldn't complain about them shutting down websites sharing them. They just have to fill the void they keep creating. Even if it's not completely obvious yet, Sega "Sells" roms with every purchase of a megadrive game from steam sega collection. (It's intended to be modified and shared on steam workshop) but you can just use them in any emulator you prefer. Sega still does what Nintendon't. (not the homebrew program)

 

[smf]

pretty sure this is not legal if they used the official devkit to make the game

If the SDK was obtained legitimately then he might have violated some clauses in the contract, although Nintendo would have to sue him before we'd find out whether the contract was deemed fair by the court.

It would be a great case as it would be similar to fortnite vs apple. If he can't sell it on nintendo's store, why can't he sell it elsewhere??

 

[diggeloid]

Maybe they used something other than a devkit. I dunno what the agreements for Unity, Unreal, and CryEngine are like, but they could've used one of those, or any other engine that supports programing Switch titles. So far what I've seen on the developer's Twitter account has only mentioned "porting costs", which could mean the cost of either the pro version of Unity, or Game Maker, or any other engine that supports Switch that requires an initial fee instead of taking part of your revenue.

When an engine like Unity and Unreal advertise Switch support, it's with the understanding that you need to be a registered Nintendo developer, otherwise you don't have access to the development tools (compiler toolchain, libraries, etc) which the engine needs to build a Switch binary.

Of course, they could have used an open source homebrew toolchain, like devkitPro.

 

[Kwyjor]

because a bunch of people here don't seem to be fully understanding of what NFTs are, here is a quick blogpost i wrote about them and why they're bad: https://gbatemp.net/entry/something-about-nfts.18772/

Thank goodness someone gets it. Key quote:

So all that's really being sold to people is a string to a metadata file that anyone can read because the blockchain is completely transparent. [...] Anyone with only a slight amount of knowledge on how to look at these things is fully capable of extracting the "contents" of an NFT and sharing them for the world to see and it's pretty much fully legal since these URLs are unprotected.

I don't really understand why the new one is banned and yet the last one isn't.

Probably because the publisher jumped up and down screaming "Ban me! Ban me! I wanna tell the whole Internet how filthy and controversial my content is and I will get so much attention!"

 

[DoctorBagPhD]

Someone at gbatemp must really love this guy before they keep giving him all of this free advertising lmao.

 

[kevin corms]

*

 

[Jayro]

I have literally no respect for NFT people

Why? It's a great way for Artists to finally get big money. I'm all for it.

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

Why? It's a great way for Artists to finally get big money. I'm all for it.

Except you can easily make an NFT off another artist's work

 

[Jayro]

Would Nintendo allow that to continue?

It's his game, not Nintendo's. They can only take back his development hardware, but his software is his own. More power to him for sticking a big middle finger to the bit guys. (Wish more devs would be this bold.)

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

It's his gamer, not Nintendo's. They can only take back his development hardware, but his software is his own. More power to him for sticking a big middle finger to the bit guys. (Wish more devs would be this bold.)

Too bad his game fucking sucked, makes this move mean less

 

[Jayro]

Except you can easily make an NFT off another artist's work

Only if they were dumb enough not to mint an NFT for it first. You ALWAYS mint your NFT before posting the artwork online, that's just a no-brainer.

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

Only if they were dumb enough not to mint an NFT for it first. You ALWAYS mint your NFT before posting the artwork online, that's just a no-brainer.

The thing is, a lot of artists dont support NFTs and don't want their work sold as one