6 ms·

When the game isn't be sold any more, along with the console, emulation makes sense. But the switch emulation for at least 2 years now has been more than good

When the game isn't be sold any more, along with the console, emulation makes sense. But the switch emulation for at least 2 years now has been more than good enough to run games of a current gen system, and you're absolutely kidding yourself if you think any meaningful percentage own the game. The emulator also requires Nintendo data they're not actually allowed to ship (there's a number of resources to download it though), but they specifically coded to support it. Imo switch 2 is coming and it'll likely be almost the same system just beefier, so going after the emulators makes sense for them.

GabrielTFS 3y ago
Legally it doesn't really matter at all whether or not the console is currently commercialized, at least from precedents like Sony v. Connectix (Connectix was selling a commercial (literally in shelves) emulator directly competing with the PlayStation while it was being commercialized and won the lawsuit Sony filed against them)
- ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
  A quick glance shows that they developed their own Bios to do this, Yuzu specifically requires you to insert a copy of the Switch's firmware, it won't work otherwise. It seems a bit grey as that would mean it's really the users who broke the law, but at the same time, the piece of software is quite literally useless without it. Even if they had their own absolutely terrible firmware with bad compatibility it'd be an easier defense to me. As is, their code is useless without an illegal-to-add addition.
Lammy 3y ago
> for at least 2 years now has been more than good enough to run games of a current gen system To be fair that's impressive but nothing new. I 'member running N64 games with my Voodoo card in 1999 when GameCube wouldn't be out for two more years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraHLE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraHLE
Liquix 3y ago
> and you're absolutely kidding yourself if you think any meaningful percentage own the game. respectfully disagree. nintendo has fought hard to capture the casual/normie demographic and they have consistently sold more switches than M$ has sold xbox ones every month since launch. switch emulation is alive and well but doesn't jeopardize their position as the non-techie's console of choice. therefore they have taken to only pursuing legal action when an emulator is being packaged up for the masses to one-click install on steam
- NamTaf 3y ago
  The GP meant that they postulate a meaningful percentage within the scope of people who emulate don’t own the game they emulate.
  - chii 3y ago
    and the implied assumption is that all those who did use the emulator without buying would've bought them.
    - joemi 3y ago
      Surely not all would have, but similarly not zero either. I think this is the real implied assumption.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Is "well they sold a lot I can just take it" ever a good defense? >they have taken to only pursuing legal action when an emulator is being packaged up for the masses to one-click install on steam Well, this breaks that trend. AFAIK Yuzu has none of that. Their general argument is that it made too much patreon money over Tears of the Kingdom.
- dt3ft 3y ago
  Normie here. I will not be buying any more switch games now that I heard about this emulation thing.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> When the game isn't be sold any more, along with the console, emulation makes sense. Emulation makes sense since day one. Frankly, good emulation is straight up better than the console. Accuracy is high and you get a lot more features. Truth is they should have released the games in this format to begin with but they insist on creating little digital fiefdoms with "exclusives" and DRM instead. If anything doesn't make sense it's all this copyright nonsense which should be abolished. > you're absolutely kidding yourself if you think any meaningful percentage own the game Not really their problem. It's the players who are infringing copyright, not them. > The emulator also requires Nintendo data they're not actually allowed to ship That's called adversarial interoperability and it's required for the system to function. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera... If anyone is to blame it's Nintendo for coming up with a system where it's impossible to not infringe on their precious "IP" while interoperating. Just like Sega was blamed when it tried to work their trademarks into their "security systems" in order to deny their competitors their rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade > The court's written opinion followed on October 20 and noted that the use of the software was non-exploitative, despite being commercial > and that the trademark infringement, being required by the TMSS for a Genesis game to run on the system, was inadvertently triggered by a fair use act and the fault of Sega for causing false labeling
- itsoktocry 3y ago
  >all this copyright nonsense which should be abolished. I wonder what the Venn diagram of people who think all IP rights should be abolished, and people who say "ideas are nothing, execution is everything" looks like?

GabrielTFS 3y ago

Legally it doesn't really matter at all whether or not the console is currently commercialized, at least from precedents like Sony v. Connectix (Connectix was selling a commercial (literally in shelves) emulator directly competing with the PlayStation while it was being commercialized and won the lawsuit Sony filed against them)

ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
A quick glance shows that they developed their own Bios to do this, Yuzu specifically requires you to insert a copy of the Switch's firmware, it won't work otherwise. It seems a bit grey as that would mean it's really the users who broke the law, but at the same time, the piece of software is quite literally useless without it. Even if they had their own absolutely terrible firmware with bad compatibility it'd be an easier defense to me. As is, their code is useless without an illegal-to-add addition.

Lammy 3y ago

> for at least 2 years now has been more than good enough to run games of a current gen system To be fair that's impressive but nothing new. I 'member running N64 games with my Voodoo card in 1999 when GameCube wouldn't be out for two more years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraHLE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraHLE

Liquix 3y ago

> and you're absolutely kidding yourself if you think any meaningful percentage own the game. respectfully disagree. nintendo has fought hard to capture the casual/normie demographic and they have consistently sold more switches than M$ has sold xbox ones every month since launch. switch emulation is alive and well but doesn't jeopardize their position as the non-techie's console of choice. therefore they have taken to only pursuing legal action when an emulator is being packaged up for the masses to one-click install on steam

NamTaf 3y ago
The GP meant that they postulate a meaningful percentage within the scope of people who emulate don’t own the game they emulate.
- chii 3y ago
  and the implied assumption is that all those who did use the emulator without buying would've bought them.
  - joemi 3y ago
    Surely not all would have, but similarly not zero either. I think this is the real implied assumption.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
Is "well they sold a lot I can just take it" ever a good defense? >they have taken to only pursuing legal action when an emulator is being packaged up for the masses to one-click install on steam Well, this breaks that trend. AFAIK Yuzu has none of that. Their general argument is that it made too much patreon money over Tears of the Kingdom.
dt3ft 3y ago
Normie here. I will not be buying any more switch games now that I heard about this emulation thing.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> When the game isn't be sold any more, along with the console, emulation makes sense. Emulation makes sense since day one. Frankly, good emulation is straight up better than the console. Accuracy is high and you get a lot more features. Truth is they should have released the games in this format to begin with but they insist on creating little digital fiefdoms with "exclusives" and DRM instead. If anything doesn't make sense it's all this copyright nonsense which should be abolished. > you're absolutely kidding yourself if you think any meaningful percentage own the game Not really their problem. It's the players who are infringing copyright, not them. > The emulator also requires Nintendo data they're not actually allowed to ship That's called adversarial interoperability and it's required for the system to function. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera... If anyone is to blame it's Nintendo for coming up with a system where it's impossible to not infringe on their precious "IP" while interoperating. Just like Sega was blamed when it tried to work their trademarks into their "security systems" in order to deny their competitors their rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade > The court's written opinion followed on October 20 and noted that the use of the software was non-exploitative, despite being commercial > and that the trademark infringement, being required by the TMSS for a Genesis game to run on the system, was inadvertently triggered by a fair use act and the fault of Sega for causing false labeling

itsoktocry 3y ago
>all this copyright nonsense which should be abolished. I wonder what the Venn diagram of people who think all IP rights should be abolished, and people who say "ideas are nothing, execution is everything" looks like?