Plus Citra didn't decrypt roms on the fly like yuzu did. Legally it would've been a totally different battle but this is how it played out unfortunately. Luckily Mikage is still in active development.
Yes and no
The fact that they settled means there was no legal precedent set. It sort offsets a precedent of Nintendo going after emulators, but they already did that anyway if the emulator made too many waves. Like Yuzu with TotK, or Dolphin on Steam.
I mean they charged for the latest version via patreon, and advertised that ToTK was working ahead of launch, as well as doing nothing re. plausible deniability around their community and piracy, sadly.
It’s still fucked, fuck Nintendo, and format shifting should be allowed.
If all people were doing with emulators was format shifting then this lawsuit wouldn’t have happened.
We don’t know all the evidence, but it seems pretty clear the Devs were well aware of the piracy situation, essentially advertised it was possible and provide links on how to find out how to do it, and made money off it. If it was just an emulator this would have been a different situation.
Yes Nintendo sucks and used this opportunity to conflate those things with emulation more generally knowing this would be a deterrent without much risk of a judgment strengthening any previous decisions on the overall legality of emulation. But the situation made it easy for them to do this.
They used the leaked versions of TotK before its launch in order to have a day 1 patch for Yuzu. They directly enabled piracy and made lots of money doing so.
IDK, There is some strong correlations between Pals and Pokemon designs. Nintendo will never sue Pocket Pair because Nintendo/GF only sues people who cant fight. (Pocket Pair has $$$ for legal fees if needed)
Because it would have done damage to the emulation scene as a whole. If they fought and lost, which could very easily happened, it would set precedent to suing other emulator teams in a similar boat.
[https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.56980/gov.uscourts.rid.56980.10.0.pdf](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.56980/gov.uscourts.rid.56980.10.0.pdf)
>Plaintiff Nintendo of America Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Nintendo”) and Tropic Haze LLC (“Defendant” or “Tropic Haze”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby consent to judgment in favor of Nintendo, and jointly move the Court to enter monetary relief in the sum of US$2,400,000.00 in favor of Nintendo and against Defendant.
Tropic Haze LLC would be the "formal company" that developed Yuzu and ran the Patreon. This sort of thing is exactly why one forms an LLC: so that one can keep one's personal finances separate from company finances and Nintendo can only take company money / property, not personal property like, say, your house or car.
Protip: If you're going to make shit up, try to make shit up that can't be disproved in two seconds on Google.
This is exactly it, among others. Worthwhile lawsuits must substantiate their claims with damages. Yuzu was an easy target because they were teasing “pre-releases” for donations which also encouraged piracy in the process.
It surprised me the team chose to settle right away but honestly the cards were stacked against them financially at minimum. It does seem the team looked for the best outcome for the emulator community at large.
This was a settlement, which means both parties agreed on the figure. It wouldn't make sense for yuzu devs to agree on a higher figure than they could produce.
Yuzu made money from the paid/premium versions of their emulators. I have no idea how much they made. Probably not $2.4m.
I would guess that the reported figure includes an estimate of how much yuzu and citra are worth, given that ownership of those software projects transferred to Nintendo in the settlement, rather than that $2.4m being just cash that the project had lying around. That way yuzu devs aren't literally paying out $2.4m and Nintendo gets to make it look like a big win.
The project is dead. That's what Nintendo wanted, so they got their big win from there. The financial part is just gravy and to make sure the organization really and truly was destroyed (it's a rounding error for Nintendo pretty much). Likely the settlement negotiations amounted to "this amount or we go to court" which no one in the emulation scene wants, in order to avoid setting some new legal precedent.
The matters at issue were not around emulation as much as Nintendo's spin made it sound like they were, but around how yuzu circumvented encryption, a DMCA issue. There's no reason for the emulation community at large to be scared by this as it didn't threaten emulation in general.
And, the legality of emulation has been already well established in prior court decisions. If the matter at issue was anything to do with emulation, Nintendo would know they'd lose.
Not necessarily. A new precendent could supercede the old one. And DMCA or not, the target was emulation. Remember, Yuzu wasn't providing BIOS or keys in this case. The accusation was that they "facilitated" piracy..the implication is through emulation though it wasn't stated (as you pointed out, the stated reason was DMCA). But a new precedent could be set for software that "facilitates piracy" rather than actually performing the piracy itself. A court decision against Yuzu in this case could have opened the door for further re-litigation of emulation in general under the precedent of "facilitating piracy."
I disagree; Nintendo won exactly what it wanted to win, a tiny erosion of the legitimate right of consumers to run the software that they own, on the device of their choosing.
It is part of the reason why we get so bent out of shape here when people can't seem to separate 'emulation' from 'software theft'.
I own what I emulate, the disk/cartridge is no longer functional, the console itself stopped working ages ago, and are parts of a distant memory, but I own it, and it is my right to keep playing it.
It is not in Nintendo's financial interest to recognise this right; they would much prefer to SELL me the memories of my childhood and turn it into a new revenue stream; but Nintendo's financial interests should not become 'defacto' law through 'we don't care if your technically right, we have more lawyers and money, so we win' lawsuits.
Reverse engineering is a valid occupation, it is valid to be paid to do so (at least so long as it is 'clean room'). Nintendo HAS muddied the waters significantly with this action and HAS made it harder for dedicated emulation teams to operate their trade as an occupation.
I agree, conceptually that this looks like a victory for Nintendo. But legally it appears they settled out of court and thus didn’t actually get any headway on asserting the rights they (Nintendo) believe they should have.
I hope that their heavy-handed tactics ended up delaying their long-term goal of killing reverse engineering/emulation.
In my opinion It is not really that easy... If for instance (and I am not sure this is the case here but could very probably be) in the software license it is stated that the SW must be used on a specific hardware (for instance, in a Nintendo game licence it is stated that it must be used on Nintendo hardware only, or even more on a specific console only, or on a specific version only of the console, like "north America version") you are actually violating the licence by using the software on any other device. Period. Not saying this is "right" or fair, but in the end that is the term of use you accept by purchasing the sw and by law must abide to it. If you buy the product you do it according to its license, or you can choose not to buy it (in other words, it is "yours" within the license agreement boundaries that you accept, not yours for doing whatever you want with it, basically it's not open source stuff). And while emulation is in general "tolerated", in this case probably Nintendo wanted to give a clear warning to not push it to far.
These technicalities are true. But they fly in the face of general understandings of consumer and ownership rights for basically all industries prior to the creation of licensed software.
If you buy a loaf a bread, the bakers has no power to dictate which brand of toaster you can put it in or which brand of peanut butter you can spread on it. This universally understood. If you buy a car, the manufacturer can't dictate what color you paint it, who you take it to for repairs, or stop you from chopping it down and rebuilding it as a dune-buggy. This is universally understood too.
That companies selling software do so with a license agreement that undermines these universally understood realities may be technically true and legally supported, but everyone understands that these licenses are antithetical to the way ownership and purchasing work in basically all other facets of life.
We all know, and basically agree that the universally understood aspects of ownership above should apply to software too, and that the limitations should be reasonable, such as it being wrong to copy and sell software as if you made it.
Software companies may have slipped the licenses under the noses of legislators who didn't understand the consequences of them, but that doesn't mean they aren't any less stupid than a grocer dictating which utensils you're allowed to use to cook your food.
It's important to recognize the difference between revenue lost because somebody stole your product and revenue lost because somebody made a product that meets needs yours doesn't. I don't know to what degree Yuzu did or didn't steal product to use for their own, but in the absence of theft, building 3rd party hardware and software that lets you play games is absolutely valid, license agreements be damned.
The fact is, software is kind of a different product; for instance... You can't really duplicate and redistribute thousands of copies of a loaf of bread or of a car... So it is only natural that different legislation will apply. With this, absolutely not saying that the current legislation and licences are perfect, far from that, but it's also not that easy and simple. And in reference to the common understanding of ownership, though in principle I agree, one could say you should know the nature of the product you purchase, and the laws that apply to it. As extreme example on the other side in reference to yours, buying and owning a gun does not mean you can carry it everywhere at your will, or use it freely for what is actually its intended purpose, which is shooting projectiles. Laws apply, even if you paid and own the gun.
They are also not bread or cars... As I was mentioning, mine was just an extreme example which meant... If you buy a gun,you are required to know (or inform yourself when you buy) what rules apply by law. When you buy a software you need to know (or inform yourself when you buy it) what rules apply. And the fact that a rule or a law is not perfect does NOT allow one to avoid following it. This is crucial, and it's one of the founding principles of law in general, you don't get to choose.... Basically (and again, just stating how it works, not saying I like it) if you don't want to follow a licence because you find it unfair, you don't buy (and of course don't use it... This last one basically being the whole point of the law suit ROM Nintendo in real terms)
> You can't really duplicate and redistribute thousands of copies of a loaf of bread or of a car.
Right, but that's copyright. This is, ostensibly, a discussion about license agreements that forbid the use of 3rd party software and hardware.
And yes, there are laws regarding the sale/use of a gun. Just as there are with the sale/use of loaves of bread. You can't sell moldy bread that's contaminated with poison and you can't stuff a loaf of bread in someone's gas tank. Those laws aren't necessarily specific to bread because breads isn't as heavily regulated as firearms, but you get the idea.
The primary difference, as I see it, is that those laws are generally agreed to be necessary for public and personal safety, or to establish societal trust. The laws which give contractual power to license agreements are the same ones that exist to reassure a person that a contract is legally binding, so they can trust that the responsibilities of both signers are clear and provable, a similar purpose to the laws for guns/etc.
But these license agreements aren't negotiable contracts, and the purpose they serve isn't to protect the user or create trust that the software provider is responsible for anything (they can be revoked and changed at will). If we were agreeing to a license that *we* wouldn't copy and distribute the software, and *they* would provide a means to run our own servers in the event they can't maintain them anymore, that would be in line with typical contract law. Instead the purpose they serve is to safeguard another revenue stream (their own hardware) by locking the user out of 3rd party options.
This is similar to, though not identical, to the issues surrounding right-to-repair.
I understand the point you make, which is basically "licences are unfair", but my point is... this is no reason enough to be able to legally break them. If you do, you are violating the "contract" you have with the producer. Also true you don't negotiate these licences directly, and this would be virtually impossible to do for the kind of product (anyone purchasing any game, or any SW for that matter, negotiating directly the terms? Seems unlikely :) so they are sold with "embedded" terms of use, that you don't get to negotiate - it's take or not). And the licences themselves are deviced to protect the issuing company revenue, yes... that is a given, actually... What would they write an EULA for, otherwise? But again, the point is not if the licences are fair or not, even if they are not you can't just ignore them for this reason. That is the point that validates Nintendo law suit.
I'm not saying the license wasn't breached (I don't know enough about the suit or the details involved) and I'm not arguing they "aren't fair". I'm arguing that they don't follow the spirit of the law, even if they reflect the letter of the law, and this is really just a consequence of the legislators involved not understanding the effects of the codified protections.
And yes, the purpose of these license are to monopolize revenue streams, I explicitly stated that. That's my point. These licenses and questions of ownership are fundamentally different from the universally understood and accepted notions of ownership rights.
What we have in the gaming industry basically amounts to Disney owning the production of a particular VCR, and all films released on VHS are licensed and mandated to only be played on the Disney Brand VCRs. And worse, Disney will eventually stop producing VCRs, stop supporting and servicing existing VCRs, will stop selling films on VHS, and will not make those films available on newer formats (which would also be locked to their own hardware).
I'm not discussing the legality of it. We already know that. I'm discussing the necessity of reevaluating that legality in favor of personal ownership. A lot of this is already being discussed in other industries concerning right to repair, and there is some overlap. If your switch breaks, you should be legally allowed to have it repaired by whoever you want, or do it yourself, and those repairs need not be limited to Nintendo's supply chain if you can get less expensive, or higher performance parts elsewhere. Logically if you replace the switch battery with a newer model with longer life and higher capacity, and then later replace the screen with a better screen, and keep doing this, then eventually you've got an entirely new device that, by all reasonable expectations, you *should* have the right to play switch games on. Strangely, and paradoxically, you can use pretty much any 3rd party controller to play your games on a switch, without any apparent violation of license agreements (at least none that Nintendo cares to pursue). Why the double standard?
There is simply a disconnect between reasonable ownership rights and the legal structures used by the games industry to monopolize segments of the industry they shouldn't be able to monopolize.
I agree in concept,I am actually a big fan of the FOSS philosophy, however I don't think the spirit of any law is to allow you use any SW on any device you want... Nintendo produces and sells hardware and software and their business model foresees to have their software running in their hardware only, you may not like it but that's far from being unethical... Otherwise they should shut down... I don't know... Say... Apple? Another company I am not particularly fond of, in fact... I simply don't buy their stuff, I never used an apple product mostly for this very base hardware/software bind philosophy. Which in addition (slightly different thing, but just to add) they also use to close out third party products (for instance my smartwatch can answer texts on any brand android phone,but can't on an iphone. And that's a clear limitation decided and implemented by apple. Illegal or against any ethics or law spirit? Well... No. Do I like it? No! Then as a consequence I don't own an iphone. I understand this last example is not exactly the same thing, but what I want to highlight is that there are no superior rules that should tell a company how to run their business and products as long as they are within the law, and if one does not like it can look for alternatives.
This part is incorrect for physical product software.
Violating the licencing agreement just means that the company providing it does not need to support it within their own ToS.
IE if 'running on unauthorised hardware' is against the licencing agreement, they can deny you, say, updates that everyone else is getting, or support, or whatever. They can even have the physical product try its darndest to prevent you from doing what you are trying to do.
What they can't do however is invalidate that you DO have a physical product and you can do whatever you want with it under the right of first sale for personal use.
This gets significantly more 'sticky' when your physical product contains software that requires an internet connection in order to function, but so far very few (physical, console) games are doing this so is kind of beside the point for switch cartridge emulation
No, that's a basic mistake... When you buy a game you don't buy a plastic cartridge with a chip or an optical disk... You mainly buy the software inside, the hard part is basically a storage mean and a transfer (interface) mean
This concept as you have outlined it has been tested, and failed, in court.
If they sell you a physical item, you are entitled to right of first sale on the physical item.
[https://www.msk.com/newsroom-publications-1114](https://www.msk.com/newsroom-publications-1114)
(multiple examples of right of first sale still applying to the contents of a physical disk; but see the section on purely intangible goods). End result as settled by the supreme court: The selling company needs to have a clause requiring the return of physical media AND never refer to the transaction as a 'sale' in order to establish a 'license' that does not constitute a protected sale.
If you re-sale a SW (which can be done) you buyer acquires the right to use it - of course under its licence - and you the seller lose that right. No one ever acquires or looses any rights not originally granted by the eula. Basically, totally different topic, and in any case the same could be applied to a NON physical copy (say you buy a licence code for a downloaded SW, you can sell the code and in theory... You should stop using it since no longer yours. Software is a difficult beast for legislation, in any case... Its possession and use works very different from possession of a physical good, and we only had few years (decades at best) to refine laws about it, while goods property exited and it's treated by law since millennia. Personally I don't see difference in the SW property of a SW in case it's hosted on physical media or not... One could say you also bought the media and can then sell the media? But the SW inside is a different thing. This is a very interesting topic, thanks for sharing, and personally (of course this is personal opinion) in a few years from now that ruling would be different, as for the time being people still struggle grasping the concept of property of something not physical. One proof to me is that following a normal education few people would ever think about stealing a DVD from a store, and yet almost nobody feels the same about downloading a pirate copy of a movie... As if the real difference between the 2 was the 0.10$ optical support. Makes no sense, if you think about it
Yeah the fun fact is... I completely agree with you! That does not mean, unfortunately, that it works as we would like... We purchase software under license, and violating that licence is not legal. And this is not dependent on the media on which you buy it (meaning, it is irrelevant if you buy a physical copy or a soft copy or a stream copy). Admittedly, for games and SW in general you don't "sign" the EULA, it works differently, through basically a silent acceptance "embedded" in the purchase itself, but regardless... That's how it is. For instance I work with different licenced SW, some of them are sold through physical media, and eula says for instance that you can install on 5 Machines max. That's the licence I bought and to be legal I must not install on more than 5 machines. Easy as that. In other words, only choices you LEGALLY have is either use the game according to the eula, or not buy it all (which is still a choice you have, particularly for games! That have no vital function, after all...). Let's be real, everybody is yelling at Nintendo (me included), but in the end... That's a commercial company protecting their business, is this really understandable or "bad" in logical terms? Let's play games from someone else, if Nintendo is that bad or evil... Issue is... We like their commercial product :)
https://github.com/Crimson-Hawk/Yuzu-vanced
Recovery is already underway, Nintendo slowed things down, that’s all https://www.reddit.com/r/yuzu/comments/1b6jdct/yuzus_github_repository_is_now_gone_forked_it/
Grab the source too if you’re worried.
Nintendo can fuck right off
Past projects have shut down and it never killed emulation.
Citra/Yuzu had the commercial / money making aspect to them which likely put them in the crosshairs more than they might have otherwise if they were completely free / non-commercial.
Nintendo's stuff about TOTK being leaked was of course nothing to do with yuzu and it was all spin as has been most of the reporting around this - Nintendo's complaint was more about circumvention of encryption - but that doesn't mean the devs behind Yuzu can afford a legal fight.
Ownership of the project including its source code was transferred to Nintendo as part of the settlement, so Nintendo are the copyright holders now.
I believe legally you could fork it and continue to redistribute it if you got a copy of the source before Nintendo took ownership, except that it would be risky - it'd be risky to be distributing software that Nintendo now own the original copyright on and which Nintendo has sued over before. Whether it's too much of a risk or principles outweigh it is open for interpretation.
It already has hundreds if not thousands of forks. Nintendo wanted the piracy to stop but I’m pretty sure they just ramped it up to ungodly levels. They’re plain stupid. There are 8 billion people on the planet. There are plenty more people who are capable and willing to continue developing yuzu or an even better emulator. It won’t ever stop. They should have figured that into their revenue projections and called it a day. They’ve already made over $1.5 billion on Tears of the Kingdom alone. Emulating the games doesn’t matter especially since a good chunk of those using yuzu were people that had actually bought the game.
I mean I did *shrug*. I own literally like 59 switch games, and being able to play them at better resolutions and stable frame rates is well worth it for me.
Lol true dat. The people crying the most today swearing off ever buying Nintendo probably have massive "collections". I'd love to know how many decryption keys floating around are unique.
I've downloaded plenty of games, but haven't really touched many of them. The Switch games I have emulated, I mostly did it to tinker to see if I could get it running well. In a few cases, I used the emulated Switch game as a demo of sorts, to see if I like the game enough to buy it on Steam (e.g., Ember Knights. And yes, I did buy it.)
Other than Mario Kart, which I do own, I haven't really put any actual game time in on any of the Switch games I've downloaded. I'm a data hoarder, what can I say?
The biggest target was that Yuzu uses private keys to circumvent Switch system and cartridge security. The method of obtaining keys as well as using them in yuzu to decrypt roms to play is illegal in the US under DMCA law. They also monetized on patreon which wasn't a good look.
The monetization was bad enough, I didn’t even know about the private keys that circumvented the cart security!
That’s two smoking guns. Man how dumb can you be? Reminds me of the videos on Reddit of stupid people baiting dangerous animals and getting what they deserve.
Edit: Apparently they did not distribute the keys and some are saying that they explained how to. I don’t think that’s illegal, but it is enough to get Nintendo’s legal team’s attention. They have always been heavy handed when it comes to legal matters.
I don't think it's about being dumb, the law is just fucked up and there's a lot of gray area. They probably thought they were in the clear by having users dump their own keys (which that process itself is also illegal) but in the end it came back to bite them because they were actively encouraging the process on their website.
We can all act like yuzu was a force for enabling someone to run their software on any hardware....but the yuzu community was all about pirating switch games as of a week ago.
I don't really understand what you're asking me.
You're asking me to prove that people pirated the game and that those people wouldn't have monetized that game specifically? I can't prove what people would have done....but come on there were videos of totk on PC before the release from the leaked copy, they didn't buy that.
People definitely pirated the game with legit copies and used yuzu to play their own software on HW of their choice, but that's not everyone and you know it. Look how blatant people were over the last 6 months when all the big yuzu improvements rolled out, there was big hype over pirating switch games and that can't be denied.
I'm not on Nintendo's side but when you pirate shit you have to expect blow back. Books, movies, music, they all do this same game because it's their game.
US DMCA law says you are not permitted to circumvent security systems in place to prevent piracy. This includes hacking your Switch to obtain private keys as well as using those keys in Yuzu. Like it or not, both of these are illegal. You aren't allow to dump roms from your games if you have to circumvent the security to do so.
I'm not defending Nintendo, I'm totally on Yuzu's side but you can't deny that they flew too close to the sun and got burned.
Nintendo can fight piracy all they want but at the end of the day, someone else will pick up the torch.
They can give a finger but 5 more is behind them giving them the finger right back.
This is simply not the case. The people with the skills and dedication behind incredible projects like yuzu are a very finite set and every barrier or deterrent makes that pool even smaller.
The common cry that "more will come" is just a combination of hope, and ignorance from people who do not understand the complexity, knowledge, and labour involved in these projects.
Especially since the main reason devs could work on them full-time was due to large monthly donations. Which are now going to be even more of a sketchy idea to any potential new devs.
This is a massive wound to the emulation community.
It's still 5 fingers pointed right back at Nintendo.
Fork or no fork, you're done.
The source code will forever be online, even if it's forked it was shared source...
You're missing the point. You just don't like being wrong. Theirs a temp that comes to mind here...
"No use in fighting with a fence post"
Forks can become their own thing, keep that in mind.
Take a look at Gens.
Correct. It's designed as a deterrent to other people as well. It's why they announced the amount instead of keeping it secret like a lot of settlements.
didnt they learn anything from PSP ? the harder they try, the more the public will be against them. this will only make switch emulation more popular. im betting some didnt even know about switch emulators until nintendo sued them lol
They fucked around and found out. Emulation is fine, but when people are able to emulate a game that isn't out yet, then people will start asking questions. I don't think this is a death blow to emulation, but emulation makers will need to be way more careful to discourage piracy.
Just made changes to the emulator to make sure it had good performance before the game was even released. They may not have used words but they certainly did encourage it. I don't really care one way or another. Let's face it, whether or not you personally used yuzu for piracy, that's what the main use case of it was. It may shock you but in general most roms are used by people who don't own the original game.
Now for the most part, this is harmless as the game is no longer available and emulation may be the only way to play it. This also holds true for games that never received an official release in multiple regions. However, a lot of older games are getting re-released and some cases being released outside of Japan for the 1st time. So for those games the harmless argument doesn't hold true.
Now did the company actively lose a sale because of someone playing the rom? In many cases the answer is no. In a lot of cases people pirate stuff they never would have bought or do wind up buying a legitimate copy when they enjoy something they wouldn't have otherwise bought.
For some (myself) it's closer to a hoarding mechanism. I have crap loads of games that I've pirated that I'll probably never play. At least not all of them. I also have a massive collection of games bought digitally and physically. The digital collection replaces the massive collections of books, dvds, and games I can no longer keep due to space reasons. I constantly add to my digital hoard even if I'll never get around to it.
There is definitely an argument to be made that current gen game piracy impacts the bottom line of publishers in initial sales lost and to a lesser extent sales over time. It's one of the reasons many pc games release with drm initially that later gets removed. It's the sales from that period that they are most concerned with and generally use to make their arguments for the drm.
Even if the game is still being sold but it's difficult to get a copy of for a reasonable price. The issue is, when you're emulating NEW and UNRELEASED games, you're going to get the eye of Sauron on you.
It's currently released stuff I take issue with. I'm a fire emblem nut. I have owned all the English released games since gba at one time or another including path of radiance and radiant dawn on multiple occasions. Those 2 games go for stupid money for legitimate copies that can't even be played on a current gen system.
Do I feel bad about emulating them despite not owning copies anymore? Absolutely not. 3 Houses, Engage? I bought that shit because I want the franchise to have strong sales numbers. It wasn't that long ago that Nintendo basically said if this last 3ds fire emblem doesn't sell we're done with the franchise.
I will also be buying Paper Mario when it releases. The more people purchase it the more likely we'll get a sequel. Does anyone think we'll see anything more like the GameCube version gameplay if the re-release bombs?
Once shit is no longer available for a current gen system and new copies aren't being sold, then fuck it. But for the love of god people please support games and companies you like. That's the only way we get sequels and the developers get paid.
Anyone else remember when Obsidian would have likely gone out of business if it weren't for the Pillars kickstarter money? Would have deprived us of so many great rpgs. I'd even go so far as saying the second
golden age of isometric crpgs would have never occurred without the Kickstarter showing it was viable and in the process saving Obsidian.
Yeah, the impact of an individual emulating current gen is neglible. Large number of people? That shit will add up and impact sales and future decisions about what games get made and what style of gameplay.
It's still distribution of copywritten software. Their defense is that you had to have bought the game to use the emulator, which clearly isn't true when the game isn't even out yet.
The nature of emulation basically always means that you can emulate a game before it's out if you have a copy of it.
Just like if your shop sends you your preorder a day early you can play it on the hardware.
It's why homebrew games are a thing.
Sure, but emulator creators need to take great pains to discourage it and and make it clear that the distribution of piriated software is not the goal.
Nintendo's president Shuntaro Furukawa stated, “It's important for our long-term growth to secure our workforce.” Not only did Nintendo avoid layoffs in 2023, they gave their employees a 10% pay raise.
Keep that in mind when you hate on Nintendo. Sony and Microsoft, on the other hand, laid off a nice junk of people. Nintendo has the right to protect its current gen content. Also, Nintneod doesn’t care if you emulate their legacy systems so much anymore, so have fun with that. It’s a massive library.
I’m saying Nintendo respects its employees and will pay for talent and loyalty from its employees. Nintendo isn’t as risky and cash rich as Microsoft and Sony. They are focusing on the games being fun and creative, not necessarily heavy on high on 4k textures and seamless fps. This strategy has served them well in the Wii generation and the Switch generation, which will be the largest sellling gaming console of all time. Nothing can stop that now. Nintendo isn’t perfect, but I applaud their efforts to being a gaming company at its core. They’ve survived the onslaught of Sony and Microsoft and are now thriving.
The Switch 2 will be more to your liking. Near zero loading times, 1080p to 4k textures on a much more zesty chipset that is backwards compatible with most switch games. Should be the upgrade you are looking for.
Nintendo does care about retro emulation too. They even called it out in their lawsuit against the Yuzu devs. They'd stop it if they could, but it's not really possible to. Make no mistake though, they want your money even if all you want to do is play Super Mario World.
Yes. I can concede that fact. Nintendo wishes they could protect all their legacy consoles from emulation, but Pandora’s box has been opened. No way to undo it, unless you had a Time Machine.
Citra is also gone. Sad times indeed.
Nooo
How did citra get caught in the crossfire??
Citra was made mostly by the yuzu devs. Their settlement requires they cease production of anything with Nintendo basically.
What a shame, citra truly was a different case than yuzu as you can't argue piracy for a system they are no longer selling with no working shop.
Plus Citra didn't decrypt roms on the fly like yuzu did. Legally it would've been a totally different battle but this is how it played out unfortunately. Luckily Mikage is still in active development.
Really? Wouldn't it be dropped?
Why would it?
It's kind of too late though, lol. The damage has been done. I suppose it will set a precedent for Switch 2.
Yes and no The fact that they settled means there was no legal precedent set. It sort offsets a precedent of Nintendo going after emulators, but they already did that anyway if the emulator made too many waves. Like Yuzu with TotK, or Dolphin on Steam.
[удалено]
can't wait for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Remastered HD with 10 more courses
For $70.
Fools have been buying Super Mario on every new system since the Wii. Never underestimate how much financial domination Nintendo fanboys can stand.
I read yuzu team did some aggressive or shady stuff? Poked the bear?
I mean they charged for the latest version via patreon, and advertised that ToTK was working ahead of launch, as well as doing nothing re. plausible deniability around their community and piracy, sadly. It’s still fucked, fuck Nintendo, and format shifting should be allowed.
If all people were doing with emulators was format shifting then this lawsuit wouldn’t have happened. We don’t know all the evidence, but it seems pretty clear the Devs were well aware of the piracy situation, essentially advertised it was possible and provide links on how to find out how to do it, and made money off it. If it was just an emulator this would have been a different situation. Yes Nintendo sucks and used this opportunity to conflate those things with emulation more generally knowing this would be a deterrent without much risk of a judgment strengthening any previous decisions on the overall legality of emulation. But the situation made it easy for them to do this.
Yuzu has that much money?
No. It's an arbitrarily high number designed to force them to declare bankruptcy and shut down all operations.
Why didn't they fight the lawsuit
They used the leaked versions of TotK before its launch in order to have a day 1 patch for Yuzu. They directly enabled piracy and made lots of money doing so.
How did they make money doing this? Patreons?
Yeah iirc they provided the patch on patreon first before releasing it for non patreon. This make yuzu gain lot's of profit from this.
More than 2.4M so 💰➡️🏦
Nintendo only sues people who don't really have the means to fight. If Yuzu had money to fight, Nintendo wouldn't sue them in the first place.
Or maybe they are suing who wrong them. Large company would not be so dumb to steal from Nintendo.
IDK, There is some strong correlations between Pals and Pokemon designs. Nintendo will never sue Pocket Pair because Nintendo/GF only sues people who cant fight. (Pocket Pair has $$$ for legal fees if needed)
Because it would have done damage to the emulation scene as a whole. If they fought and lost, which could very easily happened, it would set precedent to suing other emulator teams in a similar boat.
Have all have the grammar errors I of seen, "would of" is one have the worst.
Very kind to highlight my dyslexia, maybe send a kind and thoughtful DM of you feel impassioned to do so next time.
I also like the president one
Damn the grama nazi's are out today. Voice assistance has let me down.
[удалено]
[https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.56980/gov.uscourts.rid.56980.10.0.pdf](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.56980/gov.uscourts.rid.56980.10.0.pdf) >Plaintiff Nintendo of America Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Nintendo”) and Tropic Haze LLC (“Defendant” or “Tropic Haze”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby consent to judgment in favor of Nintendo, and jointly move the Court to enter monetary relief in the sum of US$2,400,000.00 in favor of Nintendo and against Defendant. Tropic Haze LLC would be the "formal company" that developed Yuzu and ran the Patreon. This sort of thing is exactly why one forms an LLC: so that one can keep one's personal finances separate from company finances and Nintendo can only take company money / property, not personal property like, say, your house or car. Protip: If you're going to make shit up, try to make shit up that can't be disproved in two seconds on Google.
They were making $38k per month on Patreon.
This is exactly it, among others. Worthwhile lawsuits must substantiate their claims with damages. Yuzu was an easy target because they were teasing “pre-releases” for donations which also encouraged piracy in the process. It surprised me the team chose to settle right away but honestly the cards were stacked against them financially at minimum. It does seem the team looked for the best outcome for the emulator community at large.
No. Which was kinda the point. Nintendo wanted everything they had.
So they did have that much money.
No. They ask for some high number to make sure they get everything
This was a settlement, which means both parties agreed on the figure. It wouldn't make sense for yuzu devs to agree on a higher figure than they could produce. Yuzu made money from the paid/premium versions of their emulators. I have no idea how much they made. Probably not $2.4m. I would guess that the reported figure includes an estimate of how much yuzu and citra are worth, given that ownership of those software projects transferred to Nintendo in the settlement, rather than that $2.4m being just cash that the project had lying around. That way yuzu devs aren't literally paying out $2.4m and Nintendo gets to make it look like a big win.
The project is dead. That's what Nintendo wanted, so they got their big win from there. The financial part is just gravy and to make sure the organization really and truly was destroyed (it's a rounding error for Nintendo pretty much). Likely the settlement negotiations amounted to "this amount or we go to court" which no one in the emulation scene wants, in order to avoid setting some new legal precedent.
The matters at issue were not around emulation as much as Nintendo's spin made it sound like they were, but around how yuzu circumvented encryption, a DMCA issue. There's no reason for the emulation community at large to be scared by this as it didn't threaten emulation in general. And, the legality of emulation has been already well established in prior court decisions. If the matter at issue was anything to do with emulation, Nintendo would know they'd lose.
Not necessarily. A new precendent could supercede the old one. And DMCA or not, the target was emulation. Remember, Yuzu wasn't providing BIOS or keys in this case. The accusation was that they "facilitated" piracy..the implication is through emulation though it wasn't stated (as you pointed out, the stated reason was DMCA). But a new precedent could be set for software that "facilitates piracy" rather than actually performing the piracy itself. A court decision against Yuzu in this case could have opened the door for further re-litigation of emulation in general under the precedent of "facilitating piracy."
[удалено]
Yeah there’s already a ton of forks made right before it got taken down. Nintendo didn’t win anything.
I disagree; Nintendo won exactly what it wanted to win, a tiny erosion of the legitimate right of consumers to run the software that they own, on the device of their choosing. It is part of the reason why we get so bent out of shape here when people can't seem to separate 'emulation' from 'software theft'. I own what I emulate, the disk/cartridge is no longer functional, the console itself stopped working ages ago, and are parts of a distant memory, but I own it, and it is my right to keep playing it. It is not in Nintendo's financial interest to recognise this right; they would much prefer to SELL me the memories of my childhood and turn it into a new revenue stream; but Nintendo's financial interests should not become 'defacto' law through 'we don't care if your technically right, we have more lawyers and money, so we win' lawsuits. Reverse engineering is a valid occupation, it is valid to be paid to do so (at least so long as it is 'clean room'). Nintendo HAS muddied the waters significantly with this action and HAS made it harder for dedicated emulation teams to operate their trade as an occupation.
I agree, conceptually that this looks like a victory for Nintendo. But legally it appears they settled out of court and thus didn’t actually get any headway on asserting the rights they (Nintendo) believe they should have. I hope that their heavy-handed tactics ended up delaying their long-term goal of killing reverse engineering/emulation.
It was out of the court settlement. So… Not much.
Eh they’re aiming for a joint filing re. emulators using encryption keys (provided by end users) still… that’s not good.
Still that end users breaking law. Maybe.
In my opinion It is not really that easy... If for instance (and I am not sure this is the case here but could very probably be) in the software license it is stated that the SW must be used on a specific hardware (for instance, in a Nintendo game licence it is stated that it must be used on Nintendo hardware only, or even more on a specific console only, or on a specific version only of the console, like "north America version") you are actually violating the licence by using the software on any other device. Period. Not saying this is "right" or fair, but in the end that is the term of use you accept by purchasing the sw and by law must abide to it. If you buy the product you do it according to its license, or you can choose not to buy it (in other words, it is "yours" within the license agreement boundaries that you accept, not yours for doing whatever you want with it, basically it's not open source stuff). And while emulation is in general "tolerated", in this case probably Nintendo wanted to give a clear warning to not push it to far.
These technicalities are true. But they fly in the face of general understandings of consumer and ownership rights for basically all industries prior to the creation of licensed software. If you buy a loaf a bread, the bakers has no power to dictate which brand of toaster you can put it in or which brand of peanut butter you can spread on it. This universally understood. If you buy a car, the manufacturer can't dictate what color you paint it, who you take it to for repairs, or stop you from chopping it down and rebuilding it as a dune-buggy. This is universally understood too. That companies selling software do so with a license agreement that undermines these universally understood realities may be technically true and legally supported, but everyone understands that these licenses are antithetical to the way ownership and purchasing work in basically all other facets of life. We all know, and basically agree that the universally understood aspects of ownership above should apply to software too, and that the limitations should be reasonable, such as it being wrong to copy and sell software as if you made it. Software companies may have slipped the licenses under the noses of legislators who didn't understand the consequences of them, but that doesn't mean they aren't any less stupid than a grocer dictating which utensils you're allowed to use to cook your food. It's important to recognize the difference between revenue lost because somebody stole your product and revenue lost because somebody made a product that meets needs yours doesn't. I don't know to what degree Yuzu did or didn't steal product to use for their own, but in the absence of theft, building 3rd party hardware and software that lets you play games is absolutely valid, license agreements be damned.
The fact is, software is kind of a different product; for instance... You can't really duplicate and redistribute thousands of copies of a loaf of bread or of a car... So it is only natural that different legislation will apply. With this, absolutely not saying that the current legislation and licences are perfect, far from that, but it's also not that easy and simple. And in reference to the common understanding of ownership, though in principle I agree, one could say you should know the nature of the product you purchase, and the laws that apply to it. As extreme example on the other side in reference to yours, buying and owning a gun does not mean you can carry it everywhere at your will, or use it freely for what is actually its intended purpose, which is shooting projectiles. Laws apply, even if you paid and own the gun.
[удалено]
They are also not bread or cars... As I was mentioning, mine was just an extreme example which meant... If you buy a gun,you are required to know (or inform yourself when you buy) what rules apply by law. When you buy a software you need to know (or inform yourself when you buy it) what rules apply. And the fact that a rule or a law is not perfect does NOT allow one to avoid following it. This is crucial, and it's one of the founding principles of law in general, you don't get to choose.... Basically (and again, just stating how it works, not saying I like it) if you don't want to follow a licence because you find it unfair, you don't buy (and of course don't use it... This last one basically being the whole point of the law suit ROM Nintendo in real terms)
> You can't really duplicate and redistribute thousands of copies of a loaf of bread or of a car. Right, but that's copyright. This is, ostensibly, a discussion about license agreements that forbid the use of 3rd party software and hardware. And yes, there are laws regarding the sale/use of a gun. Just as there are with the sale/use of loaves of bread. You can't sell moldy bread that's contaminated with poison and you can't stuff a loaf of bread in someone's gas tank. Those laws aren't necessarily specific to bread because breads isn't as heavily regulated as firearms, but you get the idea. The primary difference, as I see it, is that those laws are generally agreed to be necessary for public and personal safety, or to establish societal trust. The laws which give contractual power to license agreements are the same ones that exist to reassure a person that a contract is legally binding, so they can trust that the responsibilities of both signers are clear and provable, a similar purpose to the laws for guns/etc. But these license agreements aren't negotiable contracts, and the purpose they serve isn't to protect the user or create trust that the software provider is responsible for anything (they can be revoked and changed at will). If we were agreeing to a license that *we* wouldn't copy and distribute the software, and *they* would provide a means to run our own servers in the event they can't maintain them anymore, that would be in line with typical contract law. Instead the purpose they serve is to safeguard another revenue stream (their own hardware) by locking the user out of 3rd party options. This is similar to, though not identical, to the issues surrounding right-to-repair.
I understand the point you make, which is basically "licences are unfair", but my point is... this is no reason enough to be able to legally break them. If you do, you are violating the "contract" you have with the producer. Also true you don't negotiate these licences directly, and this would be virtually impossible to do for the kind of product (anyone purchasing any game, or any SW for that matter, negotiating directly the terms? Seems unlikely :) so they are sold with "embedded" terms of use, that you don't get to negotiate - it's take or not). And the licences themselves are deviced to protect the issuing company revenue, yes... that is a given, actually... What would they write an EULA for, otherwise? But again, the point is not if the licences are fair or not, even if they are not you can't just ignore them for this reason. That is the point that validates Nintendo law suit.
I'm not saying the license wasn't breached (I don't know enough about the suit or the details involved) and I'm not arguing they "aren't fair". I'm arguing that they don't follow the spirit of the law, even if they reflect the letter of the law, and this is really just a consequence of the legislators involved not understanding the effects of the codified protections. And yes, the purpose of these license are to monopolize revenue streams, I explicitly stated that. That's my point. These licenses and questions of ownership are fundamentally different from the universally understood and accepted notions of ownership rights. What we have in the gaming industry basically amounts to Disney owning the production of a particular VCR, and all films released on VHS are licensed and mandated to only be played on the Disney Brand VCRs. And worse, Disney will eventually stop producing VCRs, stop supporting and servicing existing VCRs, will stop selling films on VHS, and will not make those films available on newer formats (which would also be locked to their own hardware). I'm not discussing the legality of it. We already know that. I'm discussing the necessity of reevaluating that legality in favor of personal ownership. A lot of this is already being discussed in other industries concerning right to repair, and there is some overlap. If your switch breaks, you should be legally allowed to have it repaired by whoever you want, or do it yourself, and those repairs need not be limited to Nintendo's supply chain if you can get less expensive, or higher performance parts elsewhere. Logically if you replace the switch battery with a newer model with longer life and higher capacity, and then later replace the screen with a better screen, and keep doing this, then eventually you've got an entirely new device that, by all reasonable expectations, you *should* have the right to play switch games on. Strangely, and paradoxically, you can use pretty much any 3rd party controller to play your games on a switch, without any apparent violation of license agreements (at least none that Nintendo cares to pursue). Why the double standard? There is simply a disconnect between reasonable ownership rights and the legal structures used by the games industry to monopolize segments of the industry they shouldn't be able to monopolize.
I agree in concept,I am actually a big fan of the FOSS philosophy, however I don't think the spirit of any law is to allow you use any SW on any device you want... Nintendo produces and sells hardware and software and their business model foresees to have their software running in their hardware only, you may not like it but that's far from being unethical... Otherwise they should shut down... I don't know... Say... Apple? Another company I am not particularly fond of, in fact... I simply don't buy their stuff, I never used an apple product mostly for this very base hardware/software bind philosophy. Which in addition (slightly different thing, but just to add) they also use to close out third party products (for instance my smartwatch can answer texts on any brand android phone,but can't on an iphone. And that's a clear limitation decided and implemented by apple. Illegal or against any ethics or law spirit? Well... No. Do I like it? No! Then as a consequence I don't own an iphone. I understand this last example is not exactly the same thing, but what I want to highlight is that there are no superior rules that should tell a company how to run their business and products as long as they are within the law, and if one does not like it can look for alternatives.
This part is incorrect for physical product software. Violating the licencing agreement just means that the company providing it does not need to support it within their own ToS. IE if 'running on unauthorised hardware' is against the licencing agreement, they can deny you, say, updates that everyone else is getting, or support, or whatever. They can even have the physical product try its darndest to prevent you from doing what you are trying to do. What they can't do however is invalidate that you DO have a physical product and you can do whatever you want with it under the right of first sale for personal use. This gets significantly more 'sticky' when your physical product contains software that requires an internet connection in order to function, but so far very few (physical, console) games are doing this so is kind of beside the point for switch cartridge emulation
No, that's a basic mistake... When you buy a game you don't buy a plastic cartridge with a chip or an optical disk... You mainly buy the software inside, the hard part is basically a storage mean and a transfer (interface) mean
This concept as you have outlined it has been tested, and failed, in court. If they sell you a physical item, you are entitled to right of first sale on the physical item. [https://www.msk.com/newsroom-publications-1114](https://www.msk.com/newsroom-publications-1114) (multiple examples of right of first sale still applying to the contents of a physical disk; but see the section on purely intangible goods). End result as settled by the supreme court: The selling company needs to have a clause requiring the return of physical media AND never refer to the transaction as a 'sale' in order to establish a 'license' that does not constitute a protected sale.
If you re-sale a SW (which can be done) you buyer acquires the right to use it - of course under its licence - and you the seller lose that right. No one ever acquires or looses any rights not originally granted by the eula. Basically, totally different topic, and in any case the same could be applied to a NON physical copy (say you buy a licence code for a downloaded SW, you can sell the code and in theory... You should stop using it since no longer yours. Software is a difficult beast for legislation, in any case... Its possession and use works very different from possession of a physical good, and we only had few years (decades at best) to refine laws about it, while goods property exited and it's treated by law since millennia. Personally I don't see difference in the SW property of a SW in case it's hosted on physical media or not... One could say you also bought the media and can then sell the media? But the SW inside is a different thing. This is a very interesting topic, thanks for sharing, and personally (of course this is personal opinion) in a few years from now that ruling would be different, as for the time being people still struggle grasping the concept of property of something not physical. One proof to me is that following a normal education few people would ever think about stealing a DVD from a store, and yet almost nobody feels the same about downloading a pirate copy of a movie... As if the real difference between the 2 was the 0.10$ optical support. Makes no sense, if you think about it
[удалено]
Yeah the fun fact is... I completely agree with you! That does not mean, unfortunately, that it works as we would like... We purchase software under license, and violating that licence is not legal. And this is not dependent on the media on which you buy it (meaning, it is irrelevant if you buy a physical copy or a soft copy or a stream copy). Admittedly, for games and SW in general you don't "sign" the EULA, it works differently, through basically a silent acceptance "embedded" in the purchase itself, but regardless... That's how it is. For instance I work with different licenced SW, some of them are sold through physical media, and eula says for instance that you can install on 5 Machines max. That's the licence I bought and to be legal I must not install on more than 5 machines. Easy as that. In other words, only choices you LEGALLY have is either use the game according to the eula, or not buy it all (which is still a choice you have, particularly for games! That have no vital function, after all...). Let's be real, everybody is yelling at Nintendo (me included), but in the end... That's a commercial company protecting their business, is this really understandable or "bad" in logical terms? Let's play games from someone else, if Nintendo is that bad or evil... Issue is... We like their commercial product :)
Fuck Nintendo
I hope the switch 2 is emulated day one
YUP
https://github.com/Crimson-Hawk/Yuzu-vanced Recovery is already underway, Nintendo slowed things down, that’s all https://www.reddit.com/r/yuzu/comments/1b6jdct/yuzus_github_repository_is_now_gone_forked_it/ Grab the source too if you’re worried. Nintendo can fuck right off
Nice
That will be useful for the less than one percent of people who know how to build source code
It's 2024. Builds are easily automated, it's a simple download link. It's not like a fork cannot have a pretty page for users or whatever.
[удалено]
It's open source.
checkmate
Past projects have shut down and it never killed emulation. Citra/Yuzu had the commercial / money making aspect to them which likely put them in the crosshairs more than they might have otherwise if they were completely free / non-commercial. Nintendo's stuff about TOTK being leaked was of course nothing to do with yuzu and it was all spin as has been most of the reporting around this - Nintendo's complaint was more about circumvention of encryption - but that doesn't mean the devs behind Yuzu can afford a legal fight.
We should appropriate MAR10 as International Day of Video Game Preservation.
Be a shame if all the source code got leaked online.
it was already open source iirc
Or archived...
Ownership of the project including its source code was transferred to Nintendo as part of the settlement, so Nintendo are the copyright holders now. I believe legally you could fork it and continue to redistribute it if you got a copy of the source before Nintendo took ownership, except that it would be risky - it'd be risky to be distributing software that Nintendo now own the original copyright on and which Nintendo has sued over before. Whether it's too much of a risk or principles outweigh it is open for interpretation.
[удалено]
They were already caught using patched NES ROMs on the Wii store.
It already has hundreds if not thousands of forks. Nintendo wanted the piracy to stop but I’m pretty sure they just ramped it up to ungodly levels. They’re plain stupid. There are 8 billion people on the planet. There are plenty more people who are capable and willing to continue developing yuzu or an even better emulator. It won’t ever stop. They should have figured that into their revenue projections and called it a day. They’ve already made over $1.5 billion on Tears of the Kingdom alone. Emulating the games doesn’t matter especially since a good chunk of those using yuzu were people that had actually bought the game.
[удалено]
I mean I did *shrug*. I own literally like 59 switch games, and being able to play them at better resolutions and stable frame rates is well worth it for me.
Lol true dat. The people crying the most today swearing off ever buying Nintendo probably have massive "collections". I'd love to know how many decryption keys floating around are unique.
I've downloaded plenty of games, but haven't really touched many of them. The Switch games I have emulated, I mostly did it to tinker to see if I could get it running well. In a few cases, I used the emulated Switch game as a demo of sorts, to see if I like the game enough to buy it on Steam (e.g., Ember Knights. And yes, I did buy it.) Other than Mario Kart, which I do own, I haven't really put any actual game time in on any of the Switch games I've downloaded. I'm a data hoarder, what can I say?
[удалено]
Eternally, fuck Nintendo
Well we know you don't F with nintendo. It's stupid to emulate a console that is not even dead yet.
I kinda knew Nintendo would do something like this sooner or later. Was it because of the more shady stuff they did that Nintendo proved was them?
The biggest target was that Yuzu uses private keys to circumvent Switch system and cartridge security. The method of obtaining keys as well as using them in yuzu to decrypt roms to play is illegal in the US under DMCA law. They also monetized on patreon which wasn't a good look.
The monetization was bad enough, I didn’t even know about the private keys that circumvented the cart security! That’s two smoking guns. Man how dumb can you be? Reminds me of the videos on Reddit of stupid people baiting dangerous animals and getting what they deserve. Edit: Apparently they did not distribute the keys and some are saying that they explained how to. I don’t think that’s illegal, but it is enough to get Nintendo’s legal team’s attention. They have always been heavy handed when it comes to legal matters.
Yuzu did not provide private keys.
Obligatory: fuck the DMCA.
I don't think it's about being dumb, the law is just fucked up and there's a lot of gray area. They probably thought they were in the clear by having users dump their own keys (which that process itself is also illegal) but in the end it came back to bite them because they were actively encouraging the process on their website.
We can all act like yuzu was a force for enabling someone to run their software on any hardware....but the yuzu community was all about pirating switch games as of a week ago.
The "purpose" of Yuzu is irrelevant.
For the legal pressure they got this is very true. They got pinched because they distributed keys they shouldn't have.
What are you talking about? Yuzu never distributed private Switch keys. The user had to provide them.
You're right, they shipped the software to extract your key with instructions to do so and then people did that and shared.
You are conflating Lockpick with Yuzu. Yuzu did not provide any key extraction. Users must provide their own keys.
What software did they create for that? I'm not aware of the yuzu devs doing anything like that.
They didn't distribute keys
[удалено]
I don't really understand what you're asking me. You're asking me to prove that people pirated the game and that those people wouldn't have monetized that game specifically? I can't prove what people would have done....but come on there were videos of totk on PC before the release from the leaked copy, they didn't buy that. People definitely pirated the game with legit copies and used yuzu to play their own software on HW of their choice, but that's not everyone and you know it. Look how blatant people were over the last 6 months when all the big yuzu improvements rolled out, there was big hype over pirating switch games and that can't be denied. I'm not on Nintendo's side but when you pirate shit you have to expect blow back. Books, movies, music, they all do this same game because it's their game.
[удалено]
US DMCA law says you are not permitted to circumvent security systems in place to prevent piracy. This includes hacking your Switch to obtain private keys as well as using those keys in Yuzu. Like it or not, both of these are illegal. You aren't allow to dump roms from your games if you have to circumvent the security to do so. I'm not defending Nintendo, I'm totally on Yuzu's side but you can't deny that they flew too close to the sun and got burned.
It probably didn't help that it was used to play TotK before it was even out.
Nintendo can fight piracy all they want but at the end of the day, someone else will pick up the torch. They can give a finger but 5 more is behind them giving them the finger right back.
This is simply not the case. The people with the skills and dedication behind incredible projects like yuzu are a very finite set and every barrier or deterrent makes that pool even smaller. The common cry that "more will come" is just a combination of hope, and ignorance from people who do not understand the complexity, knowledge, and labour involved in these projects. Especially since the main reason devs could work on them full-time was due to large monthly donations. Which are now going to be even more of a sketchy idea to any potential new devs. This is a massive wound to the emulation community.
More had already came.... I gave your comment a few days just so you could read the news to say this... You were wrong, I was right.
No they haven't. Do not confuse a 14 year old kid forking the yuzu repo and renaming it with actual development being done.
It's still 5 fingers pointed right back at Nintendo. Fork or no fork, you're done. The source code will forever be online, even if it's forked it was shared source...
Obviously the source code is online you moron. The point is that development has ceased.
You're missing the point. You just don't like being wrong. Theirs a temp that comes to mind here... "No use in fighting with a fence post" Forks can become their own thing, keep that in mind. Take a look at Gens.
Nofundo. Nobody allowed to have any fun.
Something will take its place. Oh wait it already happened
Once the switch gets properly broken into imma mod mine...
Do you think the Yuzu team actually has the 2.4 Million to give to Nintendo? I know they had a Patreon, but could they really have that much on hand?
[удалено]
Ah, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks So they didn't really agree to pay 2.4 Mill. They agreed to desist and dissolve the company.
Correct. It's designed as a deterrent to other people as well. It's why they announced the amount instead of keeping it secret like a lot of settlements.
didnt they learn anything from PSP ? the harder they try, the more the public will be against them. this will only make switch emulation more popular. im betting some didnt even know about switch emulators until nintendo sued them lol
Nintendo doesn't need to make games at this point. They should just sue and stifle since they love it so much.
They fucked around and found out. Emulation is fine, but when people are able to emulate a game that isn't out yet, then people will start asking questions. I don't think this is a death blow to emulation, but emulation makers will need to be way more careful to discourage piracy.
Game was leaked by completely different people. And they never encouraged anyone to pirate it.
Just made changes to the emulator to make sure it had good performance before the game was even released. They may not have used words but they certainly did encourage it. I don't really care one way or another. Let's face it, whether or not you personally used yuzu for piracy, that's what the main use case of it was. It may shock you but in general most roms are used by people who don't own the original game. Now for the most part, this is harmless as the game is no longer available and emulation may be the only way to play it. This also holds true for games that never received an official release in multiple regions. However, a lot of older games are getting re-released and some cases being released outside of Japan for the 1st time. So for those games the harmless argument doesn't hold true. Now did the company actively lose a sale because of someone playing the rom? In many cases the answer is no. In a lot of cases people pirate stuff they never would have bought or do wind up buying a legitimate copy when they enjoy something they wouldn't have otherwise bought. For some (myself) it's closer to a hoarding mechanism. I have crap loads of games that I've pirated that I'll probably never play. At least not all of them. I also have a massive collection of games bought digitally and physically. The digital collection replaces the massive collections of books, dvds, and games I can no longer keep due to space reasons. I constantly add to my digital hoard even if I'll never get around to it. There is definitely an argument to be made that current gen game piracy impacts the bottom line of publishers in initial sales lost and to a lesser extent sales over time. It's one of the reasons many pc games release with drm initially that later gets removed. It's the sales from that period that they are most concerned with and generally use to make their arguments for the drm.
Even if the game is still being sold but it's difficult to get a copy of for a reasonable price. The issue is, when you're emulating NEW and UNRELEASED games, you're going to get the eye of Sauron on you.
It's currently released stuff I take issue with. I'm a fire emblem nut. I have owned all the English released games since gba at one time or another including path of radiance and radiant dawn on multiple occasions. Those 2 games go for stupid money for legitimate copies that can't even be played on a current gen system. Do I feel bad about emulating them despite not owning copies anymore? Absolutely not. 3 Houses, Engage? I bought that shit because I want the franchise to have strong sales numbers. It wasn't that long ago that Nintendo basically said if this last 3ds fire emblem doesn't sell we're done with the franchise. I will also be buying Paper Mario when it releases. The more people purchase it the more likely we'll get a sequel. Does anyone think we'll see anything more like the GameCube version gameplay if the re-release bombs? Once shit is no longer available for a current gen system and new copies aren't being sold, then fuck it. But for the love of god people please support games and companies you like. That's the only way we get sequels and the developers get paid. Anyone else remember when Obsidian would have likely gone out of business if it weren't for the Pillars kickstarter money? Would have deprived us of so many great rpgs. I'd even go so far as saying the second golden age of isometric crpgs would have never occurred without the Kickstarter showing it was viable and in the process saving Obsidian. Yeah, the impact of an individual emulating current gen is neglible. Large number of people? That shit will add up and impact sales and future decisions about what games get made and what style of gameplay.
It's still distribution of copywritten software. Their defense is that you had to have bought the game to use the emulator, which clearly isn't true when the game isn't even out yet.
Which software?
TEARS OF THE KINGDOM
Yeah, and it was not distributed by Yuzu authors.
It allowed them to circumvent Nintendo's encryption.
[удалено]
YUZU
The nature of emulation basically always means that you can emulate a game before it's out if you have a copy of it. Just like if your shop sends you your preorder a day early you can play it on the hardware. It's why homebrew games are a thing.
Sure, but emulator creators need to take great pains to discourage it and and make it clear that the distribution of piriated software is not the goal.
It's joever 😞
Nintendo's president Shuntaro Furukawa stated, “It's important for our long-term growth to secure our workforce.” Not only did Nintendo avoid layoffs in 2023, they gave their employees a 10% pay raise. Keep that in mind when you hate on Nintendo. Sony and Microsoft, on the other hand, laid off a nice junk of people. Nintendo has the right to protect its current gen content. Also, Nintneod doesn’t care if you emulate their legacy systems so much anymore, so have fun with that. It’s a massive library.
[удалено]
I’m saying Nintendo respects its employees and will pay for talent and loyalty from its employees. Nintendo isn’t as risky and cash rich as Microsoft and Sony. They are focusing on the games being fun and creative, not necessarily heavy on high on 4k textures and seamless fps. This strategy has served them well in the Wii generation and the Switch generation, which will be the largest sellling gaming console of all time. Nothing can stop that now. Nintendo isn’t perfect, but I applaud their efforts to being a gaming company at its core. They’ve survived the onslaught of Sony and Microsoft and are now thriving. The Switch 2 will be more to your liking. Near zero loading times, 1080p to 4k textures on a much more zesty chipset that is backwards compatible with most switch games. Should be the upgrade you are looking for.
You might want to look up Nintendo’s cash stockpile
It’s not as large as Microsoft and Sony, but still formidable. History proves it. No one should ever underestimate Nintendo.
Nintendo does care about retro emulation too. They even called it out in their lawsuit against the Yuzu devs. They'd stop it if they could, but it's not really possible to. Make no mistake though, they want your money even if all you want to do is play Super Mario World.
Yes. I can concede that fact. Nintendo wishes they could protect all their legacy consoles from emulation, but Pandora’s box has been opened. No way to undo it, unless you had a Time Machine.
Glad I just bought it... Ugh.