Comment by DaiPlusPlus

> But they've also built enough trust that I'll take that risk.

And subsequently extracted the most value they could get from that trust and goodwill: https://www.inverse.com/gaming/nintendo-eshop-closure-3ds-wi...

Games are art: if you disagree, consider that cinema is also art, and that the crassness of Michael Bay-style Hollywood films doesn't invalidate arthouse, the same way that this year's Call of Battlefield doesn't invalidate Papers Please or Monument Valley.

And if games are art, and art defines our culture, then consigning titles to the memory-hole in the name of profitability is immoral, so Nintendo's corporate stance is philistinian.

Respecting copyright is important (the software industry, our livelihoods, is built on copyright - and copyleft - after-all), copyrights aren't indefinite because it would be immoral to deny society creative-works because they're being held-hostage by rightsholders for a licensing ransom. And Nintendo isn't a solo-creator, who might have personal reasons for wanting to retract and un-license their work: their adoption of the Disney Vault strategy is entirely soulless and without merit.

I can't argue that Nintendo should be in any way be compelled build and maintain ports of old games for modern hardware, or even official emulators: doing-so is very expensive, but I do think that Nintendo should be legally restrained from continuing with their usual bully-tactics against people involved in game-preservation.