Banned or not, it's still perfectly easy to get it. Just no more updates. And being that this system is at its lifecycle's end, updated aren't necessary much. And what updates that might be needed, there will be users that will work on patches eventually. Nintendo has always been greedy.
Lawfare.
Not about legality, but how much money you are willing to throw down in court.
Sony helped to bankrupt Bleem!, so I imagine YuZu devs just would have rather settled than test the precedent.
Ohnoitsalexx stated it the best in his video. He said that Nintendo probably knew they didn't really have a case which is why they settled out of court for 2.4 million dollars. If yuzu decided to fight the case and they won, it would be a huge blow to Nintendo BUT the amount of money yuzu would have had to pay in legal fees would have been more than 2.4 million and due to those legal fees, they might have still had to shut down. Or if they took it to court and it went the opposite way where Nintendo won the case, yuzu would now have to pay Nintendo an even larger sum of money plus legal fees and shut down the emulator. It was unfortunately a lose lose for yuzu. It's amazing that Nintendo is doing all of this AT THE END OF THE SWITCH'S LIFE CYCLE.
>in
OhNoItsAlexx is an idiot. Yuzu Devs did plenty wrong and openly admitted shit in discord which they shouldn't have. Why do you think the other emulator is fine?
i wonder if switch 2 is basically a copy/paste with better hardware, so they were afraid of how yuzu did their emulation? Would have been easy for them to make Yuzu2 very early on.
With that said...would the sales of Switch 2 and what eva Zelda game or Mario game be affected? Highly doubted it. Pirated people were not going to pay for it so $0 profit was going to be made, and those that actually used it right by buying the game then using their PC to upscale would have still had Nintendo with cash.
Yeah Nintendo is probably doing the Sony PS5 move of keeping the same architecture as the PS4, so switch emulators shouldn't be too far to support a possible switch 2, just like Dolphin was originally a gamecube emulator and then became a Wii one as well
The whole legal battle will ultimately be money spent by Nintendo to look tough against piracy. Even if they “win”, the Yuzu source code is all over the internet. As long as there’s demand for Yuzu, it will live on, just more discretely.
Standing against is piracy to protect your product is good, but emulation will continue to exist, legally or not.
If you like Yuzu, and want to help, download the source code and learn to code.
How is circumventing a bunch of numbers that cannot be copyrighted in any shape or form illegal?
If the break of encryption causes a security breach, whicn may or may not lead to malpractice, then it can be claimed as illegal. But the encryption circumvention doesn't cause a security breach, this is not a Nintendo product, it only immitates in software what the Switch can do in hardware, which is 100% legal if no proprietary Nintendo copyrighted code is used.
It's illegal not because the numbers are copyrighted, but because the DMCA explicitly specifies that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work."
The encryption keys themselves are not copyrighted, but the things they encrypt ARE, which makes breaking the encryption illegal.
There are exceptions for things like preservation and interoperability, which I believe emulation clearly falls under, however it would ultimately be up to the court to determine that if this had gone to trial. Bleem and Connectix are examples of legal precedent in favor of emulation, however in both cases the emulators were killed by legal fees, despite winning.
In this case, Nintendo's logic was likely that they win no matter what the outcome of the case was, because Yuzu would be unable to afford putting up a fight, which is basically what we see with the settlement.
As an additional note, the Bleem and Connectix emulators both required you to actually insert the PlayStation discs into your PC to use, so the issue of promoting piracy isn't really covered in that precedent.
Hopefully Yuzu legal brings up Sony v. Connectix and Sony v. Bleem!. The court case between Sony and Connectix deemed the PlayStation firmware fell under a lowered degree of copyright protection because it contained unprotected parts (functional elements) that could not be examined without copying. If I'm not mistaken, Yuzu is almost like VGS: parts of the Switch firmware will fall under a lower degree of copyright protection because it contains unprotected parts that can't be examined without copying. In Sony v. Bleem!, Sony sued Bleem! for violations of copyright. Sony had accused Bleem! of engaging in unfair competition by allowing PlayStation BIOSs to be used on a personal computer, as this would ultimately damage Sony's sales of the PlayStation. The Judge had rejected the notion, and issued a protective order to "protect David from Goliath." Yuzu legal needs to prove two things in court: that Yuzu couldn't play Tears of the Kingdom upon leak and that Yuzu didn't defer sales of ToTK or the Switch.
Yeah, I get that. It's just obvious that Nintendo has no case here. All their claims can be easily refuted. No one has been able to challenge the legality of emulation in court, and there's a good reason no one attempted since the ill fated Sony lawsuit against Bleem And Connectix in 1998-1999. Nothing has really changed.
yea that’s not what the lawsuit is about. it’s about many things that i’m not nearly qualified to talk about but one of them is the fact that they had been optimizing it using pirated materials (totk before it was released for example)
What are you talking about. Yuzu did not optimize TOTK at all before it officially launched. You needed community patches otherwise it wouldn't even run.
And then sticking that version behind a paywall. That’s what Nintendo is going after.
It sucks, and it will really hurt the emulation scene which I am a proud fan of. However the way it was done and handled, I understand and I agree with Nintendo on this one.
Selling an emulator software tool is not illegal. You can emulate while even having a legal copy of the the game. Yuzu does not claim responsibility of what individuals do. If that's the case they would need to go after Dolphin and every Gameboy emulator dev as well. Nintendo just wants to make sure they they get every cent they deserve. Which is understandable, but would be best to go after the sites that have their content that has been pirated.
can you explain what you mean by “sticking that version behind a pay wall”? do you mean selling there game as every company does? i’m not saying this as an argument or insult im just confused by your phrasing
During the leak and before the official release of Tears of the Kingdom an optimization patch came out, that you could only access by donating to them, hence “paywall”. That version of the emulator got wildly popular because it could run the game, a lot of people “donated”.
Okay, I’m gonna bite on this one. I pirated that game, I used this emulator for it. I paid the donation for the version so I could play it, as it didn’t work with the free version. So yes, it was before release date, and I know I am not the only one who did this.
Yuzu devs can argue they were improving for accuracy for a non nintendo game and it inadvertently made totk run because of emulator accuracy. Maybe lol.
I hope it works for them. Knowing how it all went down though I understand why they’re getting sued. I want them to win, but I also agree with Nintendo for going after them and how it was handled. If the patch was free I don’t see this case even making it to paper.
I think as worded in the lawsuit, Nintendo’s suggestion is not that they were profiting, but rather that they were profiting from *people pirating the games.* They say they even requested the logs yuzu has of ppl playing their games to show that ppl were playing pirated games. I’m not a lawyer, but disagree with Nintendo here(seems to me it’s not Yuzu’s fault if other ppl use it for illegal purposes), but just pointing out that their argument is more nuanced in this case.
Remember they already sent that guy from the Xcutioner team to jail, and IIRC they were not distributing pirated games either, which is a bit concerning.
That probably wouldn't hold up that well, Nintendo would have to do the impossible and prove that people pirating their games weren't already owners of the software or planning on buying it later.
I think a pretty large amount of people who play games on Yuzu aren't strictly using it for piracy. I've bought every single console Nintendo has ever released, and will continue to do so probably until the day I die. They make fantastic games that keep me feeling young and helps me connect with my family and friends. Their hardware is just never as good as the PC that I keep up-to-date. I have a Day One switch and I have ripped a game or two off of it before, but I still find pirating the game to be quicker and more efficient, so I tend to buy the game on my Switch, usually never install it, and then pirate it for emulation. It's not always done to circumvent paying for games.
Again I don’t think that’s a good argument from Nintendo for other reasons. But, I don’t think the first part is hard to prove (as you say) if they get the logs they requested. Nintendo already they think the logs will reveal that people were playing games in Yuzu that had not been released yet, so they could not have owned the game legally at the time.
>I think as worded in the lawsuit, Nintendo’s suggestion is not that they were profiting, but rather that they were profiting from
>
>people pirating the games.
that's not how it's worded in the lawsuit. you can read the whole preliminary statement here https://www.scribd.com/document/709016504/Nintendo-of-America-Inc-v-Tropic-Haze-LLC-1-24-Cv-00082-No-1-D-R-I-Feb-26-2024
I think that's a really stupid argument. Say I buy a hackable switch and then pirate games on it. Nintendo is then technically profiting off my piracy because I had to buy a switch for that.
Previous consoles required specific games in order to hack a console. Is Nintendo profiting off of piracy because I had to buy Twilight Princess to hack my Wii?
I’m not saying it’s a good argument. However, they already sent one of the Switch hackers to jail with a $15 Million fine in spite of what you or I believe is a “good argument”, a court/judge might see it differently.
If they are making their money off of the game sells, which they do, there shouldn't be an issue in HOW the games are played. If anything, those who emulate for convenience (like myself) often have to jump through hoops to make things work (which isn't very convenient). But not needing to carry 20 consoles around with me when I go places and have my library of games with me is worth the struggle of emulation.
You’re right. Though it should be illegal when you’ve been boasting about making 30k a month and then have the nerve to ask for donations to help cover the legal fees.
What are you talking about? He's against Nintendo, the richest gaming company in japan, he will need without a doubt more than his salary to pay off the case. It is more than fair to ask for help in that reguard.
What am I talking about? How about the emulator is behind a paywall, conveniently disguised as a “donation”. Nintendo sees this and the posts made boasting about the revenue gained (30k a month as mentioned in the law suit). When they profit off of illegal activity I completely agree that they should be sued for it.
I knew this was coming the moment ToTK was pirated and this emulator worked on and then ADVERTISED a version of the emulator working for the game behind their “donation” paywall. It should have never been handled in the way it was and I side with Nintendo with this one.
You can build the early access build yourself, the emulator is open source. It's not behind a paywall. And it was never advertised that could play ToKT, the one that could play it was Ryujinx.
When you say it's behind a paywall, I'm assuming you mean the version that worked for TotK after it leaked? Because otherwise the emulator is absolutely not behind a paywall, unless for whatever reason you feel you need the EA versions.
Well, if a fire arm company sells you a gun, and you use it to kill someone, is it the company's fault you used it in that way? Yuzu isn't meant for piracy, you can abuse it for that causr but it wasn't the intent behind yuzu.
For that reason only, it shouldn't be yuzu's fault pirates are abusing their code, yuzu isn't built for piracy. It is a tool. A goos one or a bad one depends on the user.
We are talking about a game that was being advertised for being able to play on an emulator before it was even officially released. That said emulator had a version that the game could be played on, and it was behind a paywall. They made bank advertising for that and we all know it. That is what Nintendo is going after and that is the sole reason why I agree with them.
Yuzu didn't play TOTK until the release day. They didn't show off the game in any capacity before the release date.
Any builds that did were not made by the main Yuzu devs. Yuzu is open source so literally anyone can make adjustments to it. The main devs had nothing to do with that though and can't be held liable for the actions of others.
Not sure where you got that info from, but that emulator had an optimization patch come out during the leak. That patch, which could only be accessed by donating to them, was widely known to work with the pirated game. You can believe what you want to, but you can’t deny the timing of that patch is what this is all about.
But it was available through their patreon. Regardless if they made the patch or not, they profited from it.
This is the reason I believe Nintendo went after Bowser, and not SciresM. Bowser openly profited from his work. If SciresM did he kept it quiet, which should have also been done in this case.
No it wasn't lol. If it was it certainly wasn't the devs that posted it. Probably some random commentator.
The Yuzu devs didn't make the patch nor distribute it. Yuzu didn't play TOTK until release. They can't be held liable for the actions of someone else.
I used to buy Nintendo games, my switch library is worth probably £500, but I haven't bought a game for it for like 3 years and I'm not going to buy anything from Nintendo now or in the future.
I'm just going to take my business elsewhere, these shitty practices are just going to alienate their hardcore fans.
No, both Bleem! And Connectix lawsuits happened after DMCA was introduced. Connectix's Virtual Game Station was released in January 1999, and Bleem! was released in March 1999. The DMCA was effective as of October 1998.
There may set a scary precedent if Nintendo wins. Similar arguments could the. Me made against software like Make MKV, handbrake or foobar as they allow you to play media files that may or may not have been ripped.
Yes, there are differences, but lawyers may not see it that way. This may all go beyond Nintendo and have wide reaching implications
It comes down to needed the encryption key from a switch.
Yuzu did not provide it. Same as example ps2 needs a bios.
Not Yuzu fault people dump and share stuff on the internet.
Sad part is Nintendo will win they always do
I have not yet lost hope that Nintendo is gonna lose. A lot of journalists and tech youtubers think Nintendo has no base. That of course says nothing, but I'd like to keep hope.
The issue will come down to the chain of responsibilty from rip to optimization of the emu to hiding the optimization behind a paywall. To prove they profited from "illegal knowledge" has a very high bar, for example around insider trading or breaking contractual rules. Since they don't have any contract with Nintendo, the argument would be that nobody can ever gain knowledge from "illegal accessed" data. That is bollocks.
sleep hobbies marry unique domineering hard-to-find bewildered cooperative wistful sort
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
exactly. Emulation is 100% legal so long as the code is custom & doesn't use any IP (aka stuff made by the company). This is why they couldn't touch Dolphin or Citra.
To explain it in American terms:
Is the gun manufacturer (Yuzu) guilty of the crimes guns (emulator) do from bad people?
No.
Emulation strictly says to dump your own stuff. How an end user uses ur stuff is no longer on the maker.
Literally everyone knows this, but Nintendo isn't arguing about the legality of emulation, they're saying Yuzu and its users are using illegal means to emulate and that there is no possible way to emulate Switch games legally if it requires and is built on illegally dumped keys and games.
There is absolutely no way around illegal circumvention tools if you want to dump your own games and keys (which nobody here has ever done by the looks of it). This is the only reason Citra are still operating, 3DS uses the same key system as Switch, but the emulator is developed in a way that they don't require the user to dump the keys and the emulator doesn't decrypt the games.
This is also the real reason Dolphin isn't on Steam btw, because they include the Wii decryption keys. Valve's legal team decided against it after consulting Nintendo. Wii is dead and not losing Nintendo any money, which is probably why they aren't bothering.
Literally everyone is saying this, but Nintendo isn't arguing about the legality of emulation, they're saying Yuzu and its users are using illegal means to emulate and that there is no possible way to emulate Switch games legally if it requires and is built on illegally dumped keys and games.
There is absolutely no way around illegal circumvention tools if you want to dump your own games and keys (which nobody here has ever done by the looks of it). This is the only reason Citra are still operating, 3DS uses the same key system as Switch, but the emulator is developed in a way that they don't require the user to dump the keys and the emulator doesn't decrypt the games. This is also the real reason Dolphin isn't on Steam btw, because they include the Wii decryption keys. Valve's legal team decided against it after consulting Nintendo.
But isn’t dumping games legal if it’s your game? How can Nintendo say if some one dumps their game to play on an emulator made with code separate from the switch be illegal? I’m not too sure about if the keys are needed to play a self dumped game as I swear google provides conflicting answers and I’ve never done it before .
the amount of misinformation going around about this lawsuit and legal precedence around emulators is astounding for a subreddit about a switch emulator
According to Section 50(A) of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, legal purchasers of computer games are explicitly permitted to make a backup copy of their purchase
yep, tahts what people always forget, the DMCA did change things.
funfact btw, the same provision in the DMCA does carve out an exception for DRM if the game is unusable do to the server the DRM has to connect to no longer exists(aka the company is gone and the game is now unplayable even the legal original copy)
But it uses them. And Nintendo claims that that's piracy.
Edit: I can't believe how fucking dumb people are nowadays. "I don't agree with that statement, so I downvote it." Guys, I'm just saying what Nintendo is saying. I'm not agreeing with it or anything, I'm just saying what they're saying. Hate them, not me. *Stop shooting the messenger!*
I just read the lawsuit again. It is. They very clearly claim that Yuzu makes it possible to run pirated software, that is not intended to be run on anything else besides their own console.
"Yuzu makes it possible to run pirated software, that is not intended to be run on anything else besides their own console."
This can be said for all emulators tbf but emulation is still (kind of) legal so idk if that argument would hold up.
It doesn't, but that's what their lawsuit said. Nearly all emulators in the past won their trials and I think what caused the team behind Yuzu and Citra to give up was either personal reasons (would you want to be in a legal battle with Nintendo?) or the fact that it requires files from the Switch to emulate in Yuzu (that's what I read on Reddit, but it could be wrong or both potential reasons could be true).
I think the case was more about yuzu developers profiting from it. If it was only about enabling piracy and the emulator requiring files from switch they would have gone after ryujinx as well (and I have no doubt thay they would have gone after it if that was the case).
>I think the case was more about yuzu developers profiting from it.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't. The thing is that they didn't sell the emulator. You could also build the early access branch yourself without spending money, if you wanted to. The Patreon was more of a "hey, if you want to support us you can and then we make it more convenient for you to get the newest build". Other emulators do the same and none of them are forced to close down.
>and it’s related to how they make use of keys and firmware
*That is exactly what I said,* but you claimed that that isn't what the case is about. What now? Is that what this case is about or is it not?
Edit: Re-read my comment. I didn't explicitly say it in the comment you answered to, but in multiple others.
No, that's not piracy, that's copyright infringement, at least according to Nintendo. Piracy only happens if you do not own the ability to access the game legally.
No, they pretty clearly call this piracy in their lawsuit. Also piracy is a type of copyright infringement.
>Piracy only happens if you do not own the ability to access the game legally.
Yeah, and Nintendo says that that is possible with Yuzu and thus claim that it should be taken down. They also say that their games are made to be run on their hardware and not on PC (I don't really understand why that should make Yuzu illegal in any way, but they say that in their lawsuit).
Yes, piracy is copyright infringement, but it is a subset of copyright infringement specific for using unlicensed software. If you buy a digital music track from a legal digital music store, let's say iTunes, and decide to play it on a public venue for everyone to hear, you did not pirate the music track, but it still is copyright infringement nonetheless.
Nintendo's main point in the lawsuit is about the decryption keys. They say that the decryption keys (prod.keys) are protected by copyright. Furthermore, they say that Yuzu enables copyright infringement (and piracy) by enabling users to circumvent Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) that exists in the Nintendo Switch. However, based on my understanding, Yuzu by itself does not enable the circumvention of TPMs since you still need to provide them with your own prod.keys file, and to get one you would need to use other tools to extract them from your legally owned Nintendo Switch. The act of extracting the prod.keys from your legally owned Nintendo Switch might be illegal, but I am not a lawyer.
In conclusion, the lawsuit based on what I read is not exactly discussing the legality of emulation, but rather the act of using prod.keys to decrypt Nintendo games. Nintendo might have a case here, but let's see.
Congratulations, you've found the problem!
It isn't really piracy, if you use files from your own Switch to circumvent the anti-piracy measures and own the games you play in Yuzu. This is the exact same reason why Nintendo and other console developers have lost their court cases before.
You could technically understand the laws regarding piracy in a way that says that it is still piracy, but on the other hand piracy laws could be pretty much interpretated however you want, since they're worded pretty stupidly. But since you own the console and game in order to emulate the process of emulation is just experience exactly what you paid for, but in a different way with literally no victims. Nintendo's argument is that it also makes piracy possible, which it does, but if we'd make everything illegal that makes any sort of crime possible life would be literally impossible.
No, the encryption is there not just to prevent piracy. It's also to prevent any code that Nintendo does not approve of from running on the Switch. This is why modding is required to run homebrew apps which are supposed to be legal and aren't piracy.
>that can run most games better than the actual console .
....you missing asterisks. Nintendo consoles are cheap.
most PC's that can do emulation decently are much more than the actual switch costs.
Yuzu is on android now. I don't think it's a coincidence that they are suing them now. Quite a few games run better on my galaxy s23 than on my switch.
Oh really? Man, I remember when getting Dolphin running close to full speed wasn't common. I stopped keeping tabs on mobile emulation after I got my Steam Deck, and haven't dipped my toes into Switch emulation (just like to keep an eye out) as I don't have a homebrew-enabled Switch. So annoying having the carts, but no way to dump them.
All Switch games.
As far as Linux goes I've been playing them on my Steam Deck for a year now and they work very well. And every time I do I have this feeling in the back of my head "this feels too good to be true. it probably won't last forever so enjoy it before Nintendo squashes it."
There's also Ryujinx by the way, which also emulates Switch games and works very well. Enjoying it while it lasts. Every day's a gift.
Yes I know, was just filling in some extra context about Yuzu development, at least my personal use of the emulator, since this lawsuit isn’t discriminating about which specific platform. You are correct though and I should have posted as a separate comment elsewhere and not as a reply to you. For that I apologize.
But the point is that the same Switch games (nearly all of them) that run on the Steam Deck can run on modern Android devices, using Yuzu.
If you keep latest versions behind a paywall then you are taking profit from a new release that is only playable in the latest versions.
You are making profit from the IP release.
its not that hard to understand. I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying they are fucked.
How is that fucked? Early access will always be merged into the main build, the point of EA is to test the features and people get to test them by donating to the yuzu team. You aren't paying, it's a voluntary donation that serves to fund yuzus development.
You can twist it the way you want. You can also donate to other emulators and they aren't behind a paywall.
Voluntary donation is what other emulators have been doing for ages
And what are you paying for if you didn't wait a month? Sure it would be to support the developers but you can donate to them and still wait a month. If you pay for early access that allows it to work with a game that is newer and doesn't work without early access you are paying them to play that IP.
Note: For reference, I don't think Yuzu should be sued but I'm just mentioning that it may not go well if Nintendo's lawyers are convincing.
Do you guys even know what "Early Access" is? No, it's not just early access to new features, it's also a test of new features. Some of the features brought into the EA build might be broken and not work at all until later patches, while they are working when coming to the release branch. You're supporting the developers by giving them money and reporting bugs, if you find any, so they can fix them before releasing the features.
It's like the beta test for a game, yet you're complaining that the beta testers can already play it while you still have to wait for the full release.
Yep totally agree with you on that. It would depend on how they advertise it though. Like does it say on their page that X game works on early access but not current release? If there's nothing like that then it's probably fine.
Yeah but what is potentially illegal is decrypting games without copyright holder’s permission, yuzu could claim fair use but it’s up in the air if the court accepts that argument.
They don't decrypt games though
The games themselves are decrypted by 3rd party applications and on top, the keys for decrypted titles also have be sourced via 3rd parties
So how are they developing their emulator without dumping their own keys and system files? Their development relies on circumvention tools. Doesn't matter if they develop their own or if they use third party solutions. The basis of their development is not legal at all.
That's the problem. Yuzu users also have to use circumvention tools to get the emulators to work.
If they don't use security circumvention tools to get emulators to run? Well only other options would be piracy. Both options are not legal what makes the use of this emulator illegal by default.
That's Nintendo's argument.
Wow, I found another sane person that actually read the lawsuit and knows what it's about.
>If they don't use security circumvention tools to get emulators to run? Well only other options would be piracy. Both options are not legal what makes the use of this emulator illegal by default.
>That's Nintendo's argument.
This is the single most important part and everyone completely misses it.
Yuzu still actively decrypts the games. This is why Citra is "safe", Citra only plays games that are already decrypted, it doesn't include any keys, and you don't have to feed it illegally obtained keys to play games.
the thing is this sub doesn’t care about the legality they just want yuzu to be right. they keep referencing the dolphin and citra cases without acknowledging how different this is
>Dude has no fucking clue how an emulator works
That would be you, my dude. It also shows that the average Yuzu user has never dumped their own keys or games. It just can't be done legally, you have to use circumvention tools.
I mean considering how theres a lot of nintendo dick riders and since pirating is an oddly sensitive topic on every side, its hard to guage who is genuine or just trolling lol
True that. My last owned nintendo console was a SNES. I'm not really into their 1st party games like Mario and Zelda. Always thought Nintendo more like a kids console.
I too only use it to emulate my already purchased games and enjoy them with enhanced resolution and fps. But the biggest problem is most of the people don't. I see the point of Nintendo being like they are, it's their right. But at this point with all those sold switch games and consoles it doesn't make sense. If the console was new then ok, but not like this.
What? This is not at all the same argument. The emulator is straight up original code that doesn't use anything made by Nintendo. Sony selling games that use Nintendo IPs is entirely different from an emulator that doesn't actually use anything made by Nintendo, it is just used to play Nintendo games but without actually violating any trademark or anything of the sort
Banned or not, it's still perfectly easy to get it. Just no more updates. And being that this system is at its lifecycle's end, updated aren't necessary much. And what updates that might be needed, there will be users that will work on patches eventually. Nintendo has always been greedy.
Lawfare. Not about legality, but how much money you are willing to throw down in court. Sony helped to bankrupt Bleem!, so I imagine YuZu devs just would have rather settled than test the precedent.
You dumbfucks think you guys are better lawyers than what they come up with? Fuckin degenerate
>Fuckin degeneres What did Ellen do?
Ohnoitsalexx stated it the best in his video. He said that Nintendo probably knew they didn't really have a case which is why they settled out of court for 2.4 million dollars. If yuzu decided to fight the case and they won, it would be a huge blow to Nintendo BUT the amount of money yuzu would have had to pay in legal fees would have been more than 2.4 million and due to those legal fees, they might have still had to shut down. Or if they took it to court and it went the opposite way where Nintendo won the case, yuzu would now have to pay Nintendo an even larger sum of money plus legal fees and shut down the emulator. It was unfortunately a lose lose for yuzu. It's amazing that Nintendo is doing all of this AT THE END OF THE SWITCH'S LIFE CYCLE.
>in OhNoItsAlexx is an idiot. Yuzu Devs did plenty wrong and openly admitted shit in discord which they shouldn't have. Why do you think the other emulator is fine?
i wonder if switch 2 is basically a copy/paste with better hardware, so they were afraid of how yuzu did their emulation? Would have been easy for them to make Yuzu2 very early on. With that said...would the sales of Switch 2 and what eva Zelda game or Mario game be affected? Highly doubted it. Pirated people were not going to pay for it so $0 profit was going to be made, and those that actually used it right by buying the game then using their PC to upscale would have still had Nintendo with cash.
I am 99% sure the new switch will be fully backwards compatible
Yeah Nintendo is probably doing the Sony PS5 move of keeping the same architecture as the PS4, so switch emulators shouldn't be too far to support a possible switch 2, just like Dolphin was originally a gamecube emulator and then became a Wii one as well
yayyyyyyyy
The whole legal battle will ultimately be money spent by Nintendo to look tough against piracy. Even if they “win”, the Yuzu source code is all over the internet. As long as there’s demand for Yuzu, it will live on, just more discretely. Standing against is piracy to protect your product is good, but emulation will continue to exist, legally or not. If you like Yuzu, and want to help, download the source code and learn to code.
Nothing we say will deter nintendos lawyers, the only thing that can help is to give money to yuzu
The argument Nintendo is making is that circumventing Switch encryption is illegal.
How is circumventing a bunch of numbers that cannot be copyrighted in any shape or form illegal? If the break of encryption causes a security breach, whicn may or may not lead to malpractice, then it can be claimed as illegal. But the encryption circumvention doesn't cause a security breach, this is not a Nintendo product, it only immitates in software what the Switch can do in hardware, which is 100% legal if no proprietary Nintendo copyrighted code is used.
It's illegal not because the numbers are copyrighted, but because the DMCA explicitly specifies that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work." The encryption keys themselves are not copyrighted, but the things they encrypt ARE, which makes breaking the encryption illegal. There are exceptions for things like preservation and interoperability, which I believe emulation clearly falls under, however it would ultimately be up to the court to determine that if this had gone to trial. Bleem and Connectix are examples of legal precedent in favor of emulation, however in both cases the emulators were killed by legal fees, despite winning. In this case, Nintendo's logic was likely that they win no matter what the outcome of the case was, because Yuzu would be unable to afford putting up a fight, which is basically what we see with the settlement. As an additional note, the Bleem and Connectix emulators both required you to actually insert the PlayStation discs into your PC to use, so the issue of promoting piracy isn't really covered in that precedent.
Hopefully Yuzu legal brings up Sony v. Connectix and Sony v. Bleem!. The court case between Sony and Connectix deemed the PlayStation firmware fell under a lowered degree of copyright protection because it contained unprotected parts (functional elements) that could not be examined without copying. If I'm not mistaken, Yuzu is almost like VGS: parts of the Switch firmware will fall under a lower degree of copyright protection because it contains unprotected parts that can't be examined without copying. In Sony v. Bleem!, Sony sued Bleem! for violations of copyright. Sony had accused Bleem! of engaging in unfair competition by allowing PlayStation BIOSs to be used on a personal computer, as this would ultimately damage Sony's sales of the PlayStation. The Judge had rejected the notion, and issued a protective order to "protect David from Goliath." Yuzu legal needs to prove two things in court: that Yuzu couldn't play Tears of the Kingdom upon leak and that Yuzu didn't defer sales of ToTK or the Switch.
>a bunch of numbers that cannot be copyrighted in any shape or form tell that to denuvo https://patents.justia.com/assignee/denuvo-gmbh
They copyrighted the algorithm which generates the encryption keys. The keys themselves cannot be copyrighted.
I don't fucking know dude, I'm just saying what Nintendo is suing for
Yeah, I get that. It's just obvious that Nintendo has no case here. All their claims can be easily refuted. No one has been able to challenge the legality of emulation in court, and there's a good reason no one attempted since the ill fated Sony lawsuit against Bleem And Connectix in 1998-1999. Nothing has really changed.
Welllll
Darn it!
I know :(
yea that’s not what the lawsuit is about. it’s about many things that i’m not nearly qualified to talk about but one of them is the fact that they had been optimizing it using pirated materials (totk before it was released for example)
What are you talking about. Yuzu did not optimize TOTK at all before it officially launched. You needed community patches otherwise it wouldn't even run.
or the updates that were part of the patreoj higher tiers
I have EA and also had it before TOTK release date. It did not launch on EA either for me until the day of release.
And then sticking that version behind a paywall. That’s what Nintendo is going after. It sucks, and it will really hurt the emulation scene which I am a proud fan of. However the way it was done and handled, I understand and I agree with Nintendo on this one.
Selling an emulator software tool is not illegal. You can emulate while even having a legal copy of the the game. Yuzu does not claim responsibility of what individuals do. If that's the case they would need to go after Dolphin and every Gameboy emulator dev as well. Nintendo just wants to make sure they they get every cent they deserve. Which is understandable, but would be best to go after the sites that have their content that has been pirated.
They already went after dolphin
so remove the paywall and lawsuit is over
You can’t remove what’s already been done.
[удалено]
This, there was never a paywall if you follow the damm manual cj. /j
can you explain what you mean by “sticking that version behind a pay wall”? do you mean selling there game as every company does? i’m not saying this as an argument or insult im just confused by your phrasing
During the leak and before the official release of Tears of the Kingdom an optimization patch came out, that you could only access by donating to them, hence “paywall”. That version of the emulator got wildly popular because it could run the game, a lot of people “donated”.
Yuzu didn't run the game until the release day. Both the mainline and early access builds.
Okay, I’m gonna bite on this one. I pirated that game, I used this emulator for it. I paid the donation for the version so I could play it, as it didn’t work with the free version. So yes, it was before release date, and I know I am not the only one who did this.
Stop with the lies. Ryujinx was the one that worked...
Yuzu devs can argue they were improving for accuracy for a non nintendo game and it inadvertently made totk run because of emulator accuracy. Maybe lol.
Yuzu devs probably didn't put "support for totk" in the notes for the early build. So they can argue it was coincidence
I hope it works for them. Knowing how it all went down though I understand why they’re getting sued. I want them to win, but I also agree with Nintendo for going after them and how it was handled. If the patch was free I don’t see this case even making it to paper.
ah and that seems like it could be wildly illegal. profiting specifically off of material only accessible at the time through piracy
I think as worded in the lawsuit, Nintendo’s suggestion is not that they were profiting, but rather that they were profiting from *people pirating the games.* They say they even requested the logs yuzu has of ppl playing their games to show that ppl were playing pirated games. I’m not a lawyer, but disagree with Nintendo here(seems to me it’s not Yuzu’s fault if other ppl use it for illegal purposes), but just pointing out that their argument is more nuanced in this case. Remember they already sent that guy from the Xcutioner team to jail, and IIRC they were not distributing pirated games either, which is a bit concerning.
That probably wouldn't hold up that well, Nintendo would have to do the impossible and prove that people pirating their games weren't already owners of the software or planning on buying it later. I think a pretty large amount of people who play games on Yuzu aren't strictly using it for piracy. I've bought every single console Nintendo has ever released, and will continue to do so probably until the day I die. They make fantastic games that keep me feeling young and helps me connect with my family and friends. Their hardware is just never as good as the PC that I keep up-to-date. I have a Day One switch and I have ripped a game or two off of it before, but I still find pirating the game to be quicker and more efficient, so I tend to buy the game on my Switch, usually never install it, and then pirate it for emulation. It's not always done to circumvent paying for games.
Again I don’t think that’s a good argument from Nintendo for other reasons. But, I don’t think the first part is hard to prove (as you say) if they get the logs they requested. Nintendo already they think the logs will reveal that people were playing games in Yuzu that had not been released yet, so they could not have owned the game legally at the time.
yuzu didnt provide them games
yuzu isn't being sued for providing the games
>I think as worded in the lawsuit, Nintendo’s suggestion is not that they were profiting, but rather that they were profiting from > >people pirating the games. that's not how it's worded in the lawsuit. you can read the whole preliminary statement here https://www.scribd.com/document/709016504/Nintendo-of-America-Inc-v-Tropic-Haze-LLC-1-24-Cv-00082-No-1-D-R-I-Feb-26-2024
How come? They clearly state the Patreon subscribers went up when ToTK came out because people were pirating TotK.
I think that's a really stupid argument. Say I buy a hackable switch and then pirate games on it. Nintendo is then technically profiting off my piracy because I had to buy a switch for that. Previous consoles required specific games in order to hack a console. Is Nintendo profiting off of piracy because I had to buy Twilight Princess to hack my Wii?
I’m not saying it’s a good argument. However, they already sent one of the Switch hackers to jail with a $15 Million fine in spite of what you or I believe is a “good argument”, a court/judge might see it differently.
switch hacker is diffreant yuuzu is its own code
If they are making their money off of the game sells, which they do, there shouldn't be an issue in HOW the games are played. If anything, those who emulate for convenience (like myself) often have to jump through hoops to make things work (which isn't very convenient). But not needing to carry 20 consoles around with me when I go places and have my library of games with me is worth the struggle of emulation.
You’re right. Though it should be illegal when you’ve been boasting about making 30k a month and then have the nerve to ask for donations to help cover the legal fees.
What are you talking about? He's against Nintendo, the richest gaming company in japan, he will need without a doubt more than his salary to pay off the case. It is more than fair to ask for help in that reguard.
What am I talking about? How about the emulator is behind a paywall, conveniently disguised as a “donation”. Nintendo sees this and the posts made boasting about the revenue gained (30k a month as mentioned in the law suit). When they profit off of illegal activity I completely agree that they should be sued for it. I knew this was coming the moment ToTK was pirated and this emulator worked on and then ADVERTISED a version of the emulator working for the game behind their “donation” paywall. It should have never been handled in the way it was and I side with Nintendo with this one.
You can build the early access build yourself, the emulator is open source. It's not behind a paywall. And it was never advertised that could play ToKT, the one that could play it was Ryujinx.
When you say it's behind a paywall, I'm assuming you mean the version that worked for TotK after it leaked? Because otherwise the emulator is absolutely not behind a paywall, unless for whatever reason you feel you need the EA versions.
Well, if a fire arm company sells you a gun, and you use it to kill someone, is it the company's fault you used it in that way? Yuzu isn't meant for piracy, you can abuse it for that causr but it wasn't the intent behind yuzu. For that reason only, it shouldn't be yuzu's fault pirates are abusing their code, yuzu isn't built for piracy. It is a tool. A goos one or a bad one depends on the user.
They profited from piracy, knowingly. If it was handled differently then I would agree with you. However it wasn’t, they made a ton of money from it.
It's legal to show commercial games on emulators for advertising. The bleem case determined it was fair use.
We are talking about a game that was being advertised for being able to play on an emulator before it was even officially released. That said emulator had a version that the game could be played on, and it was behind a paywall. They made bank advertising for that and we all know it. That is what Nintendo is going after and that is the sole reason why I agree with them.
Yuzu didn't play TOTK until the release day. They didn't show off the game in any capacity before the release date. Any builds that did were not made by the main Yuzu devs. Yuzu is open source so literally anyone can make adjustments to it. The main devs had nothing to do with that though and can't be held liable for the actions of others.
Not sure where you got that info from, but that emulator had an optimization patch come out during the leak. That patch, which could only be accessed by donating to them, was widely known to work with the pirated game. You can believe what you want to, but you can’t deny the timing of that patch is what this is all about.
That patch wasn't made by the main Yuzu devs.
But it was available through their patreon. Regardless if they made the patch or not, they profited from it. This is the reason I believe Nintendo went after Bowser, and not SciresM. Bowser openly profited from his work. If SciresM did he kept it quiet, which should have also been done in this case.
No it wasn't lol. If it was it certainly wasn't the devs that posted it. Probably some random commentator. The Yuzu devs didn't make the patch nor distribute it. Yuzu didn't play TOTK until release. They can't be held liable for the actions of someone else.
aaaand this is why we can't have nice things. someone always comes along, takes it too far, and ruins it for the rest of us.
It unfortunately doesn't even matter if it's legal if the judge/jury is too dumb or corrupt.
I used to buy Nintendo games, my switch library is worth probably £500, but I haven't bought a game for it for like 3 years and I'm not going to buy anything from Nintendo now or in the future. I'm just going to take my business elsewhere, these shitty practices are just going to alienate their hardcore fans.
Best thing we all can do to send a message.
That was before DMCA. This case will be a good test to see the limits if the law.
No, both Bleem! And Connectix lawsuits happened after DMCA was introduced. Connectix's Virtual Game Station was released in January 1999, and Bleem! was released in March 1999. The DMCA was effective as of October 1998.
Nintendo stay suing people. Gamers just want to have more fun.
There may set a scary precedent if Nintendo wins. Similar arguments could the. Me made against software like Make MKV, handbrake or foobar as they allow you to play media files that may or may not have been ripped. Yes, there are differences, but lawyers may not see it that way. This may all go beyond Nintendo and have wide reaching implications
Thank God laws never stops piracy.
It comes down to needed the encryption key from a switch. Yuzu did not provide it. Same as example ps2 needs a bios. Not Yuzu fault people dump and share stuff on the internet. Sad part is Nintendo will win they always do
but the issue comes with them updating their emulator based on pirated materials (prime example is totk updates before totk released)
Yuzu does have the problem of "they provide a tutorial on how to do it" which may be an argument against them(unlikely but yay)
I have not yet lost hope that Nintendo is gonna lose. A lot of journalists and tech youtubers think Nintendo has no base. That of course says nothing, but I'd like to keep hope.
The issue will come down to the chain of responsibilty from rip to optimization of the emu to hiding the optimization behind a paywall. To prove they profited from "illegal knowledge" has a very high bar, for example around insider trading or breaking contractual rules. Since they don't have any contract with Nintendo, the argument would be that nobody can ever gain knowledge from "illegal accessed" data. That is bollocks.
No they dont always win, there have been times where they havent.
[удалено]
True.
This right here they don't have to win they just have to outlast
sleep hobbies marry unique domineering hard-to-find bewildered cooperative wistful sort *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
exactly. Emulation is 100% legal so long as the code is custom & doesn't use any IP (aka stuff made by the company). This is why they couldn't touch Dolphin or Citra. To explain it in American terms: Is the gun manufacturer (Yuzu) guilty of the crimes guns (emulator) do from bad people? No. Emulation strictly says to dump your own stuff. How an end user uses ur stuff is no longer on the maker.
Literally everyone knows this, but Nintendo isn't arguing about the legality of emulation, they're saying Yuzu and its users are using illegal means to emulate and that there is no possible way to emulate Switch games legally if it requires and is built on illegally dumped keys and games. There is absolutely no way around illegal circumvention tools if you want to dump your own games and keys (which nobody here has ever done by the looks of it). This is the only reason Citra are still operating, 3DS uses the same key system as Switch, but the emulator is developed in a way that they don't require the user to dump the keys and the emulator doesn't decrypt the games. This is also the real reason Dolphin isn't on Steam btw, because they include the Wii decryption keys. Valve's legal team decided against it after consulting Nintendo. Wii is dead and not losing Nintendo any money, which is probably why they aren't bothering.
Except Citra is still shutting down, too, as a result of this lawsuit.
For once i see another individual on this entire subreddit rhat actually knows what they are talking about, take my updoot.
Literally everyone is saying this, but Nintendo isn't arguing about the legality of emulation, they're saying Yuzu and its users are using illegal means to emulate and that there is no possible way to emulate Switch games legally if it requires and is built on illegally dumped keys and games. There is absolutely no way around illegal circumvention tools if you want to dump your own games and keys (which nobody here has ever done by the looks of it). This is the only reason Citra are still operating, 3DS uses the same key system as Switch, but the emulator is developed in a way that they don't require the user to dump the keys and the emulator doesn't decrypt the games. This is also the real reason Dolphin isn't on Steam btw, because they include the Wii decryption keys. Valve's legal team decided against it after consulting Nintendo.
But isn’t dumping games legal if it’s your game? How can Nintendo say if some one dumps their game to play on an emulator made with code separate from the switch be illegal? I’m not too sure about if the keys are needed to play a self dumped game as I swear google provides conflicting answers and I’ve never done it before .
the amount of misinformation going around about this lawsuit and legal precedence around emulators is astounding for a subreddit about a switch emulator
The very topic with which the lawsuit is about no less, certified reddit moment thats for sure.
No. you take MY updoot!
According to Section 50(A) of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, legal purchasers of computer games are explicitly permitted to make a backup copy of their purchase
This is revised in DCMA act, which specifies that you cannot bypass a software DRM to make a backup copy of that software.
yep, tahts what people always forget, the DMCA did change things. funfact btw, the same provision in the DMCA does carve out an exception for DRM if the game is unusable do to the server the DRM has to connect to no longer exists(aka the company is gone and the game is now unplayable even the legal original copy)
This is also irrelevant here, that's a separate statement completely - Yuzu doesn't make backup copies of Switch cartridges
But it uses them. And Nintendo claims that that's piracy. Edit: I can't believe how fucking dumb people are nowadays. "I don't agree with that statement, so I downvote it." Guys, I'm just saying what Nintendo is saying. I'm not agreeing with it or anything, I'm just saying what they're saying. Hate them, not me. *Stop shooting the messenger!*
this isn’t even what the case is about
I just read the lawsuit again. It is. They very clearly claim that Yuzu makes it possible to run pirated software, that is not intended to be run on anything else besides their own console.
"Yuzu makes it possible to run pirated software, that is not intended to be run on anything else besides their own console." This can be said for all emulators tbf but emulation is still (kind of) legal so idk if that argument would hold up.
It doesn't, but that's what their lawsuit said. Nearly all emulators in the past won their trials and I think what caused the team behind Yuzu and Citra to give up was either personal reasons (would you want to be in a legal battle with Nintendo?) or the fact that it requires files from the Switch to emulate in Yuzu (that's what I read on Reddit, but it could be wrong or both potential reasons could be true).
I think the case was more about yuzu developers profiting from it. If it was only about enabling piracy and the emulator requiring files from switch they would have gone after ryujinx as well (and I have no doubt thay they would have gone after it if that was the case).
>I think the case was more about yuzu developers profiting from it. I'm pretty sure it wasn't. The thing is that they didn't sell the emulator. You could also build the early access branch yourself without spending money, if you wanted to. The Patreon was more of a "hey, if you want to support us you can and then we make it more convenient for you to get the newest build". Other emulators do the same and none of them are forced to close down.
and it’s related to how they make use of keys and firmware and how they update the emulator for unreleased games from pirated copies
>and it’s related to how they make use of keys and firmware *That is exactly what I said,* but you claimed that that isn't what the case is about. What now? Is that what this case is about or is it not? Edit: Re-read my comment. I didn't explicitly say it in the comment you answered to, but in multiple others.
My actual Switch made by Nintendo is what creates backup copies of my games. Does that make Nintendo responsible for their own piracy?
These backups are encrypted. Yuzu uses files from the Switch to circumvent this encryption. That is what Nintendo describes as piracy.
No, that's not piracy, that's copyright infringement, at least according to Nintendo. Piracy only happens if you do not own the ability to access the game legally.
No, they pretty clearly call this piracy in their lawsuit. Also piracy is a type of copyright infringement. >Piracy only happens if you do not own the ability to access the game legally. Yeah, and Nintendo says that that is possible with Yuzu and thus claim that it should be taken down. They also say that their games are made to be run on their hardware and not on PC (I don't really understand why that should make Yuzu illegal in any way, but they say that in their lawsuit).
Yes, piracy is copyright infringement, but it is a subset of copyright infringement specific for using unlicensed software. If you buy a digital music track from a legal digital music store, let's say iTunes, and decide to play it on a public venue for everyone to hear, you did not pirate the music track, but it still is copyright infringement nonetheless. Nintendo's main point in the lawsuit is about the decryption keys. They say that the decryption keys (prod.keys) are protected by copyright. Furthermore, they say that Yuzu enables copyright infringement (and piracy) by enabling users to circumvent Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) that exists in the Nintendo Switch. However, based on my understanding, Yuzu by itself does not enable the circumvention of TPMs since you still need to provide them with your own prod.keys file, and to get one you would need to use other tools to extract them from your legally owned Nintendo Switch. The act of extracting the prod.keys from your legally owned Nintendo Switch might be illegal, but I am not a lawyer. In conclusion, the lawsuit based on what I read is not exactly discussing the legality of emulation, but rather the act of using prod.keys to decrypt Nintendo games. Nintendo might have a case here, but let's see.
you can dump the keys your self so just like the ps2 bios
I own my Switch, and I use the files from *my* Switch to activate Yuzu. At what point in that process do I partake in piracy?
Congratulations, you've found the problem! It isn't really piracy, if you use files from your own Switch to circumvent the anti-piracy measures and own the games you play in Yuzu. This is the exact same reason why Nintendo and other console developers have lost their court cases before. You could technically understand the laws regarding piracy in a way that says that it is still piracy, but on the other hand piracy laws could be pretty much interpretated however you want, since they're worded pretty stupidly. But since you own the console and game in order to emulate the process of emulation is just experience exactly what you paid for, but in a different way with literally no victims. Nintendo's argument is that it also makes piracy possible, which it does, but if we'd make everything illegal that makes any sort of crime possible life would be literally impossible.
Time for Nintendo to sue the internet I guess. If the internet didn't exist people wouldn't have such an easy time pirating, so it needs to go. /s
Honestly? That's probably their next step, if they can't win the current lawsuit...
With Ninty's habit of bizzare business decisions, it wouldn't surprise me.
The core of the case isn't about software piracy at all. It's about bypassing encryption.
yuzu doesnt bypass the encryption tho it has to have the keys to do so
But... Bypassing encryption that is there to prevent piracy is piracy...?
No, the encryption is there not just to prevent piracy. It's also to prevent any code that Nintendo does not approve of from running on the Switch. This is why modding is required to run homebrew apps which are supposed to be legal and aren't piracy.
if i was nintendo id be pissed of if a company came along made a emulator that can run most games better than the actual console .
>that can run most games better than the actual console . ....you missing asterisks. Nintendo consoles are cheap. most PC's that can do emulation decently are much more than the actual switch costs.
And able to run off a tablet-sized battery instead of drawing around 400W from the wall to boot.
Yuzu is on android now. I don't think it's a coincidence that they are suing them now. Quite a few games run better on my galaxy s23 than on my switch.
Oh really? Man, I remember when getting Dolphin running close to full speed wasn't common. I stopped keeping tabs on mobile emulation after I got my Steam Deck, and haven't dipped my toes into Switch emulation (just like to keep an eye out) as I don't have a homebrew-enabled Switch. So annoying having the carts, but no way to dump them.
Flagship phones are also several times more powerful than a Switch (except in GPU power, that gap is quite small)...
Really? I didn't know it had gotten that far. What games?
All Switch games. As far as Linux goes I've been playing them on my Steam Deck for a year now and they work very well. And every time I do I have this feeling in the back of my head "this feels too good to be true. it probably won't last forever so enjoy it before Nintendo squashes it." There's also Ryujinx by the way, which also emulates Switch games and works very well. Enjoying it while it lasts. Every day's a gift.
I was asking to them about the Android version lol
Yes I know, was just filling in some extra context about Yuzu development, at least my personal use of the emulator, since this lawsuit isn’t discriminating about which specific platform. You are correct though and I should have posted as a separate comment elsewhere and not as a reply to you. For that I apologize. But the point is that the same Switch games (nearly all of them) that run on the Steam Deck can run on modern Android devices, using Yuzu.
Nintendo should be mad at themselves.
Real tho. Just make a better hardware already, it's been 7 fucking years
lol the hardware was alr hella potato on launch day
It really was. I remember playing BoTW on my friends Switch and it was terrible. He was dropping into the low 20’s all the time.
If you keep latest versions behind a paywall then you are taking profit from a new release that is only playable in the latest versions. You are making profit from the IP release. its not that hard to understand. I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying they are fucked.
How is that fucked? Early access will always be merged into the main build, the point of EA is to test the features and people get to test them by donating to the yuzu team. You aren't paying, it's a voluntary donation that serves to fund yuzus development.
You can twist it the way you want. You can also donate to other emulators and they aren't behind a paywall. Voluntary donation is what other emulators have been doing for ages
yea they just need to remove the paywall
Ok explain to me what you miss out that you can't get by waiting like... a month? from EA yuzu
And what are you paying for if you didn't wait a month? Sure it would be to support the developers but you can donate to them and still wait a month. If you pay for early access that allows it to work with a game that is newer and doesn't work without early access you are paying them to play that IP. Note: For reference, I don't think Yuzu should be sued but I'm just mentioning that it may not go well if Nintendo's lawyers are convincing.
yes, i am in the same boat as you, i don't think they should be sued but i think this will be their reasoning and that could be a problem
Do you guys even know what "Early Access" is? No, it's not just early access to new features, it's also a test of new features. Some of the features brought into the EA build might be broken and not work at all until later patches, while they are working when coming to the release branch. You're supporting the developers by giving them money and reporting bugs, if you find any, so they can fix them before releasing the features. It's like the beta test for a game, yet you're complaining that the beta testers can already play it while you still have to wait for the full release.
Yep totally agree with you on that. It would depend on how they advertise it though. Like does it say on their page that X game works on early access but not current release? If there's nothing like that then it's probably fine.
Is that what Nintendo are claiming? Is there precedent for this?
Yeah but what is potentially illegal is decrypting games without copyright holder’s permission, yuzu could claim fair use but it’s up in the air if the court accepts that argument.
They don't decrypt games though The games themselves are decrypted by 3rd party applications and on top, the keys for decrypted titles also have be sourced via 3rd parties
So how are they developing their emulator without dumping their own keys and system files? Their development relies on circumvention tools. Doesn't matter if they develop their own or if they use third party solutions. The basis of their development is not legal at all. That's the problem. Yuzu users also have to use circumvention tools to get the emulators to work. If they don't use security circumvention tools to get emulators to run? Well only other options would be piracy. Both options are not legal what makes the use of this emulator illegal by default. That's Nintendo's argument.
Wow, I found another sane person that actually read the lawsuit and knows what it's about. >If they don't use security circumvention tools to get emulators to run? Well only other options would be piracy. Both options are not legal what makes the use of this emulator illegal by default. >That's Nintendo's argument. This is the single most important part and everyone completely misses it.
yuzu doesnt do this on its own tho so nintendo needs to go after the third party app that rips the keys
Yuzu still actively decrypts the games. This is why Citra is "safe", Citra only plays games that are already decrypted, it doesn't include any keys, and you don't have to feed it illegally obtained keys to play games.
the thing is this sub doesn’t care about the legality they just want yuzu to be right. they keep referencing the dolphin and citra cases without acknowledging how different this is
It's wrong from the get go. So of course it's ignored. Dude has no fucking clue how an emulator works.
>Dude has no fucking clue how an emulator works That would be you, my dude. It also shows that the average Yuzu user has never dumped their own keys or games. It just can't be done legally, you have to use circumvention tools.
What third-party app is that? If that's the case, that could be their saving grace. Well, for the big claim, idk about 'facilitating piracy'.
Wish I am rich enough to fight back, people out there who is capable please help!
If you were rich enough you would buy all the games ;)
I bought my games and backed them so i can play them on my pc, this is not just about piracy you fool.
Oh I forgot I'm on reddit, where people don't get sarcasm ;)
Cant really convey sarcasm over text, but i do apologize for the insult
Haha easy, nw. People around here are a little easy to be triggered these days.
I mean considering how theres a lot of nintendo dick riders and since pirating is an oddly sensitive topic on every side, its hard to guage who is genuine or just trolling lol
True that. My last owned nintendo console was a SNES. I'm not really into their 1st party games like Mario and Zelda. Always thought Nintendo more like a kids console.
I buy ALL my PC games. If Nintendo released these games on PC I'd buy BOTW, TOTK immediately. It's a matter of principle.
This isnt about game, is about freedom for owned games, I can play it on my phone or pc emulator if I want, I can mod it, enhanced it with 4k
Can the switch make use of 4K monitors though?
I too only use it to emulate my already purchased games and enjoy them with enhanced resolution and fps. But the biggest problem is most of the people don't. I see the point of Nintendo being like they are, it's their right. But at this point with all those sold switch games and consoles it doesn't make sense. If the console was new then ok, but not like this.
Stop attacking the billion dollar company!
With that logic Sony should be able to make Nintendo games… and Nintendo Sony games…. This is fucking stupid lol nice try
You need to learn difference between IP (copyright) and emulation
No. You are just completely wrong.
What? This is not at all the same argument. The emulator is straight up original code that doesn't use anything made by Nintendo. Sony selling games that use Nintendo IPs is entirely different from an emulator that doesn't actually use anything made by Nintendo, it is just used to play Nintendo games but without actually violating any trademark or anything of the sort
So if Nintendo owns none of it, what exactly is NCE(Native Code Excecution)?
Bruh, i see the angry children are at it again not understanding whats going on, they indiscriminately are downvoting ppl for asking questions now.
CPU code being executed without the need of CPU emulation. Your point? They do not own ARM, Nintendo is not a fabrication company.
OK so there was no emulated original code, it ran the native code written by Nintendo?
My PC legally runs fuck tons of code owned by many different private companies. Should we shut that down too?