The open source Nintendo Switch Emulator 'yuzu' now has a Vulkan renderer

The blog post is quite interesting. They're basically saying that Vulkan is for AMD support because AMD OpenGL drivers are terrible. For NVIDIA OpenGL is the way to go because it matches better with how it is used by games.


Last edited by Ehvis on 4 December 2019 at 1:16 pm UTC

I'm a bit on the fence about this one, strangely enough I have no issues with emulation, or with paid games.. and yet it seems so odd to have to pay for what is effectively.. pure piracy in 99% of the usecases if not more.

I'm a bit on the fence about this one, strangely enough I have no issues with emulation, or with paid games.. and yet it seems so odd to have to pay for what is effectively.. pure piracy in 99% of the usecases if not more.

I get what you're saying, but the whole paying for Early Access to new features is really just a way of supporting the developers of the emulator a little more. It's tough work for sure and all the code ends up open source anyway.

I wouldn't conflate emulation with piracy like that though. There's tons of legitimate use cases of emulation.

I like their approach to fetch the needed keys and files from your own handheld. Cannot confirm how involved the process is actually. That is the way to go for these newer, more complex systems if you don't want to be sued. Especially regarding the cartridge dumping for getting games to play.

But the Quickstart guide video has to be a joke, right? Yeah, sure, show how to visit a web page, download and run an application on Windows without ever touching the really pressing issues of the information extraction process itself that is describe further down the written guide. And people speak of hitting a steep learning curve with vim...

The blog post is quite interesting. They're basically saying that Vulkan is for AMD support because AMD OpenGL drivers are terrible. For NVIDIA OpenGL is the way to go because it matches better with how it is used by games.

It's also fun to see that one of the workaround for AMD users was to use Linux instead of Windows

Thanks for posting it Liam

I'm a bit on the fence about this one, strangely enough I have no issues with emulation, or with paid games.. and yet it seems so odd to have to pay for what is effectively.. pure piracy in 99% of the usecases if not more.

I get what you're saying, but the whole paying for Early Access to new features is really just a way of supporting the developers of the emulator a little more. It's tough work for sure and all the code ends up open source anyway.

I wouldn't conflate emulation with piracy like that though. There's tons of legitimate use cases of emulation.

Development for games being a huge one. Shout out to the Stella developers, who I know visit this site. I am sure many Atari 2600 homebrews exist because of that emulator.

I'm a bit on the fence about this one, strangely enough I have no issues with emulation, or with paid games.. and yet it seems so odd to have to pay for what is effectively.. pure piracy in 99% of the usecases if not more.

Hundreds of years from now, it will be thanks to "pirates" that people will be able to play the games we have enjoyed in our lifetimes. NOT the large corporations who cannot even be trusted as custodians of their own source code. "Piracy" isn't even a necessary evil, it is an absolute good for humanity in the long run because of the oppressive copyright scheme we had foisted on us.


Last edited by Desum on 5 December 2019 at 12:00 am UTC

I'm a bit on the fence about this one, strangely enough I have no issues with emulation, or with paid games.. and yet it seems so odd to have to pay for what is effectively.. pure piracy in 99% of the usecases if not more.

Hundreds of years from now, it will be thanks to "pirates" that people will be able to play the games we have enjoyed in our lifetimes. NOT the large corporations who cannot even be trusted as custodians of their own source code. "Piracy" isn't even a necessary evil, it is an absolute good for humanity in the long run because of the oppressive copyright scheme we had foisted on us.

Hundreds of years from now, maybe half a dozen historians will be interested in playing the games we have enjoyed in our lifetimes. And that's assuming civilization survives the next 40 years. Mind you, I think scholarship is important, I'm just saying--in terms of ordinary people, in hundreds of years they'll want to play their games, with maybe a little vogue for playing those retro games from only (hundreds - 20) of years in the future.
(Well, maybe the Koreans will still be playing Starcraft, kind of the way we still play chess. In competitive matches they will ceremoniously have a drink of tea before the match, except for reasons nobody remembers they will have to chant "Do the Dew!" after the first sip)


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 5 December 2019 at 12:30 am UTC

I'm a bit on the fence about this one, strangely enough I have no issues with emulation, or with paid games.. and yet it seems so odd to have to pay for what is effectively.. pure piracy in 99% of the usecases if not more.

Hundreds of years from now, it will be thanks to "pirates" that people will be able to play the games we have enjoyed in our lifetimes. NOT the large corporations who cannot even be trusted as custodians of their own source code. "Piracy" isn't even a necessary evil, it is an absolute good for humanity in the long run because of the oppressive copyright scheme we had foisted on us.

Hundreds of years from now, maybe half a dozen historians will be interested in playing the games we have enjoyed in our lifetimes. And that's assuming civilization survives the next 40 years. Mind you, I think scholarship is important, I'm just saying--in terms of ordinary people, in hundreds of years they'll want to play their games, with maybe a little vogue for playing those retro games from only (hundreds - 20) of years in the future.
(Well, maybe the Koreans will still be playing Starcraft, kind of the way we still play chess. In competitive matches they will ceremoniously have a drink of tea before the match, except for reasons nobody remembers they will have to chant "Do the Dew!" after the first sip)

Yes, like those half dozen scholars interested in stories like Beowulf other ancient works. Or the pittance of people who care about more "recent" public domain works like Alice in Wonderland, A Princess of Mars or The Night Land. Never mind all the diverse pieces of music and art that are used and remixed to this day.

Perhaps YOU don't care about playing games from before your time (or preserving cultural artifacts in general), but more people than you seem to think do. And emulators and "piracy" are how that's going to happen with video games by and large. Most games will NEVER get source code either released or rewritten. Hell, in the case of SEGA, nearly their entire Saturn catalog's source code is gone.

I'm not in favor of abolishing copyright either, but what we have now is far past excessive and is going to cause a lot of works, not just games, to be lost.


Last edited by Desum on 5 December 2019 at 2:23 am UTC

Yes, like those half dozen scholars interested in stories like Beowulf other ancient works.

Yes, exactly like. And I was serious when I said I think scholarship is important. I've taken Beowulf courses myself. But nonetheless, you were giving an overstated impression of your point.
(In fact, I probably like copyright less than you do; it's an antiquated system intended to preserve the profits and control of owners of early industrial revolution printing presses. To this day it remains mainly a tool for top-down class warfare, but now it's a tool poorly adapted to current technologies. There are other possible models for encouraging and supporting creative work. But IMO the biggest problems with the current copyright model aren't really about the deep future)

Yes, like those half dozen scholars interested in stories like Beowulf other ancient works.

Yes, exactly like. And I was serious when I said I think scholarship is important. I've taken Beowulf courses myself. But nonetheless, you were giving an overstated impression of your point.
(In fact, I probably like copyright less than you do; it's an antiquated system intended to preserve the profits and control of owners of early industrial revolution printing presses. To this day it remains mainly a tool for top-down class warfare, but now it's a tool poorly adapted to current technologies. There are other possible models for encouraging and supporting creative work. But IMO the biggest problems with the current copyright model aren't really about the deep future)

Copyright paired with a short duration is worth the trade for the works in the arts it generates. But that's another topic. If you are in favor of doing away with copyright in total, whatever issue is there you could have with piracy? Even I don't advocate making unauthorized copies of games less than twenty years old and passing them around. But without any copyright, that is exactly what one could do.

Yes, like those half dozen scholars interested in stories like Beowulf other ancient works.

Yes, exactly like. And I was serious when I said I think scholarship is important. I've taken Beowulf courses myself. But nonetheless, you were giving an overstated impression of your point.
(In fact, I probably like copyright less than you do; it's an antiquated system intended to preserve the profits and control of owners of early industrial revolution printing presses. To this day it remains mainly a tool for top-down class warfare, but now it's a tool poorly adapted to current technologies. There are other possible models for encouraging and supporting creative work. But IMO the biggest problems with the current copyright model aren't really about the deep future)

Copyright paired with a short duration is worth the trade for the works in the arts it generates. But that's another topic. If you are in favor of doing away with copyright in total, whatever issue is there you could have with piracy? Even I don't advocate making unauthorized copies of games less than twenty years old and passing them around. But without any copyright, that is exactly what one could do.

You're reading into my words. I never said a thing about piracy, pro or con. Something can be true and yet there can be false arguments for it; I can agree that something is true but still insist that some specific reason has nothing to do with why. So for instance, I believe the world is round, but if someone was trying to convince a flat earther by saying that obviously, people's heads are round and God made the world in our (heads') image, I'd be saying hang on a moment.
So no, I'm not arguing against piracy, I'm just saying a particular argument you made for it is overblown. In fact I'm not particularly bothered by piracy as a rule, although I don't think it's a cut and dried question. For instance, I become a lot more uneasy if it's piracy of small developers' stuff. And I do think there is some value in sticking to the law until it can be changed, even if it's not a good law . . . although there are limits. And I'm not in favour of replacing copyright with nothing, I'm in favour of replacing it with something else. I could discuss some suggestions for that something else, but it would get pretty wordy. But without any alternative in place or even very widespread perception that there could be alternatives, I will have to accept copyright limping along a while longer. On the other hand, piracy helps make the current copyright regime gradually less viable, which is fine by me . . . so yeah, my views on it are complicated.

Yes, like those half dozen scholars interested in stories like Beowulf other ancient works.

Yes, exactly like. And I was serious when I said I think scholarship is important. I've taken Beowulf courses myself. But nonetheless, you were giving an overstated impression of your point.
(In fact, I probably like copyright less than you do; it's an antiquated system intended to preserve the profits and control of owners of early industrial revolution printing presses. To this day it remains mainly a tool for top-down class warfare, but now it's a tool poorly adapted to current technologies. There are other possible models for encouraging and supporting creative work. But IMO the biggest problems with the current copyright model aren't really about the deep future)

Copyright paired with a short duration is worth the trade for the works in the arts it generates. But that's another topic. If you are in favor of doing away with copyright in total, whatever issue is there you could have with piracy? Even I don't advocate making unauthorized copies of games less than twenty years old and passing them around. But without any copyright, that is exactly what one could do.

You're reading into my words. I never said a thing about piracy, pro or con. Something can be true and yet there can be false arguments for it; I can agree that something is true but still insist that some specific reason has nothing to do with why. So for instance, I believe the world is round, but if someone was trying to convince a flat earther by saying that obviously, people's heads are round and God made the world in our (heads') image, I'd be saying hang on a moment.
So no, I'm not arguing against piracy, I'm just saying a particular argument you made for it is overblown. In fact I'm not particularly bothered by piracy as a rule, although I don't think it's a cut and dried question. For instance, I become a lot more uneasy if it's piracy of small developers' stuff. And I do think there is some value in sticking to the law until it can be changed, even if it's not a good law . . . although there are limits. And I'm not in favour of replacing copyright with nothing, I'm in favour of replacing it with something else. I could discuss some suggestions for that something else, but it would get pretty wordy. But without any alternative in place or even very widespread perception that there could be alternatives, I will have to accept copyright limping along a while longer. On the other hand, piracy helps make the current copyright regime gradually less viable, which is fine by me . . . so yeah, my views on it are complicated.

Oh, preserving cultural artifacts is an overblown reason? M'kay. Are video games the only thing you feel that way about?

Yes, like those half dozen scholars interested in stories like Beowulf other ancient works.

Yes, exactly like. And I was serious when I said I think scholarship is important. I've taken Beowulf courses myself. But nonetheless, you were giving an overstated impression of your point.
(In fact, I probably like copyright less than you do; it's an antiquated system intended to preserve the profits and control of owners of early industrial revolution printing presses. To this day it remains mainly a tool for top-down class warfare, but now it's a tool poorly adapted to current technologies. There are other possible models for encouraging and supporting creative work. But IMO the biggest problems with the current copyright model aren't really about the deep future)

Copyright paired with a short duration is worth the trade for the works in the arts it generates. But that's another topic. If you are in favor of doing away with copyright in total, whatever issue is there you could have with piracy? Even I don't advocate making unauthorized copies of games less than twenty years old and passing them around. But without any copyright, that is exactly what one could do.

You're reading into my words. I never said a thing about piracy, pro or con. Something can be true and yet there can be false arguments for it; I can agree that something is true but still insist that some specific reason has nothing to do with why. So for instance, I believe the world is round, but if someone was trying to convince a flat earther by saying that obviously, people's heads are round and God made the world in our (heads') image, I'd be saying hang on a moment.
So no, I'm not arguing against piracy, I'm just saying a particular argument you made for it is overblown. In fact I'm not particularly bothered by piracy as a rule, although I don't think it's a cut and dried question. For instance, I become a lot more uneasy if it's piracy of small developers' stuff. And I do think there is some value in sticking to the law until it can be changed, even if it's not a good law . . . although there are limits. And I'm not in favour of replacing copyright with nothing, I'm in favour of replacing it with something else. I could discuss some suggestions for that something else, but it would get pretty wordy. But without any alternative in place or even very widespread perception that there could be alternatives, I will have to accept copyright limping along a while longer. On the other hand, piracy helps make the current copyright regime gradually less viable, which is fine by me . . . so yeah, my views on it are complicated.

Oh, preserving cultural artifacts is an overblown reason? M'kay. Are video games the only thing you feel that way about?

Mmm, I think this conversation is over.

Yes, like those half dozen scholars interested in stories like Beowulf other ancient works.

Yes, exactly like. And I was serious when I said I think scholarship is important. I've taken Beowulf courses myself. But nonetheless, you were giving an overstated impression of your point.
(In fact, I probably like copyright less than you do; it's an antiquated system intended to preserve the profits and control of owners of early industrial revolution printing presses. To this day it remains mainly a tool for top-down class warfare, but now it's a tool poorly adapted to current technologies. There are other possible models for encouraging and supporting creative work. But IMO the biggest problems with the current copyright model aren't really about the deep future)

Copyright paired with a short duration is worth the trade for the works in the arts it generates. But that's another topic. If you are in favor of doing away with copyright in total, whatever issue is there you could have with piracy? Even I don't advocate making unauthorized copies of games less than twenty years old and passing them around. But without any copyright, that is exactly what one could do.

You're reading into my words. I never said a thing about piracy, pro or con. Something can be true and yet there can be false arguments for it; I can agree that something is true but still insist that some specific reason has nothing to do with why. So for instance, I believe the world is round, but if someone was trying to convince a flat earther by saying that obviously, people's heads are round and God made the world in our (heads') image, I'd be saying hang on a moment.
So no, I'm not arguing against piracy, I'm just saying a particular argument you made for it is overblown. In fact I'm not particularly bothered by piracy as a rule, although I don't think it's a cut and dried question. For instance, I become a lot more uneasy if it's piracy of small developers' stuff. And I do think there is some value in sticking to the law until it can be changed, even if it's not a good law . . . although there are limits. And I'm not in favour of replacing copyright with nothing, I'm in favour of replacing it with something else. I could discuss some suggestions for that something else, but it would get pretty wordy. But without any alternative in place or even very widespread perception that there could be alternatives, I will have to accept copyright limping along a while longer. On the other hand, piracy helps make the current copyright regime gradually less viable, which is fine by me . . . so yeah, my views on it are complicated.

Oh, preserving cultural artifacts is an overblown reason? M'kay. Are video games the only thing you feel that way about?

Mmm, I think this conversation is over.

Oh? Alright then~

Ha, that went there quick....

The funny thing about copyright / age. Sometimes it is about trends that can't be foreseen.
Let's take Nintendo for example, since this is the topic of this thrread. There is a site I use to update my MAME collection. MAME of course has a policy of not emulating anything newer than 15(?) years. But this same site for a long time would not allow posts of Nintendo or Sony torrents. Because they are the companies that actively go after sites. But companies like Sega, Atari, Commodore (well of course some are extinct) don't go sue happy. But for a short time there, they announced that they could finally host up to the SNES and PS1. But later recanted that.
My theory was that Nintendo saw and Sony saw that there is not only a market for 'retro' gaming, but that it is a HUGE market. So again curbed the distribution of old games.

Now, the funny thing here is Sega. All of their systems images are easily found. Yet they very successfully sell the Genesis collection, and even sell select remastered Sega Master System games on the Nintendo Switch.
It is the whole argument of 'would people buy these games if they were made commercially available again for new systems?' Yes. 'Would people just download them and play them in emulators?' Also yes. Now while they don't make money from the latter choice, not everyone wants to muck around with RetroArch, or other emulators, where a lot of times they are not 100%
The really fun things are the 'hardware' emulators, like the N64 one where it has as good as compatibility as Mupen64, which isn't the best around.
Even Sony realized they could make a little cash based on PS1-3 games on PSN. I don't think piracy really cuts into their profits as much as most people think they do.
Actually I wonder if a study has ever been done on if DRM is more expensive to publishers than loss from piracy.... because like any other middleware, I am sure various copy protection methods cost money.

In defense of Yuzu having paid betas, my two cents are
It's clearly a proven business model. Many people who use emulators often do not know or care what goes on in their development. Of course there's the blatant and mostly harmless problem of people nagging devs on twitter for why their emulator doesn't support their favorite game. But there's also the more insidious problem-- Many people are more than willing to pay money for an emulator that sorta works but that is completely closed source and this I believe will ultimately lead to the platform having much worse emulation for many decades to come. (See the N64 for example).
So because of this, Yuzu having a patreon AND github allows them to profit off these people while still doing a good service for the emulation scene.

Mmm, I think this conversation is over.

Oh? Alright then~

I don't mean to intrude on your conversation which is over, but if either of you have some links to some videos or articles or podcast episodes or something which to some high degree overlap with your complicated but interesting-sounding views on the copyright system, then I might appreciate links (private or public). Not insisting though. Also don't easily forget to value your time and give it away to internet strangers who might not even watch your link. :)

Mmm, I think this conversation is over.

Oh? Alright then~

I don't mean to intrude on your conversation which is over, but if either of you have some links to some videos or articles or podcast episodes or something which to some high degree overlap with your complicated but interesting-sounding views on the copyright system, then I might appreciate links (private or public). Not insisting though. Also don't easily forget to value your time and give it away to internet strangers who might not even watch your link. :)

I have no such. My concrete ideas don't really mesh that closely with any I've seen suggested or discussed. Here's a quick precis of a notion I've been mulling for copyright:

Spoiler, click me

You do a sort of giant, government-funded Patreon. The government assesses about how much gets spent on the media overall in a year and sets aside about that much in taxes. Then, they set up a giant Patreon/crowdfunding style website, ideally using open source technologies. Every would-be creator can make pages for their projects. Every citizen gets an equal share of the tax dough which they can allocate to any creators they want. The cut of everyone who doesn't bother tops everyone up proportionally. There might be ceilings, soft or hard, or at least notifications along the lines of "This project is considered fully funded" to soft-encourage people to diversify their contributions.

Then creators go do their thing and create stuff, having been paid to do it, and it's all released creative-commons-ish; everyone gets access to everything. No piracy, no DRM, no DMCA; it's your privilege as a citizen to access all the creative stuff done in the country. No superprofits for shareholders and layers of executives; the money goes to the creators. At the same time, the government isn't running the industry--the people get to decide what they want to fund.

In the case of online games, the business of running servers would be basically decoupled from the business of creating games in the first place.

Full disclosure: I am a radical leftist with a preference for relatively bottom-up, participatory stuff over centralized statist forms of leftiness. If I got to wave a wand and re-write society the setup I describe would be run in a less centralized way that was related to how the whole shebang was operated, but the popular participation and the access to everything would still be there.