GitLab takes down Nintendo Switch emulator suyu due to the DMCA

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: NozoSince Yuzu is under the GPLv3 license, someone should contact the FSF to keep an eye on Nintendo and begin tracking any potential GPL violation perpetuated by the company, Nintendo may want to see how far they can stretch this.

How funny would it be if the next Nintendo console actually uses Yuzu for backward compatibility... and then the FSF sues them for not releasing the code changes...

I was thinking the same thing since they brought something about not being sure if Switch 2 was going to be backwards compatible and I'd love it if FSF did come after them for it

Quoting: ToddLGood thing I've rejected anything they've done for over a decade and counting and I'm glad that there are other games out there that interest me more than whatever they output.

Shameless plug for "Nintendo-style gaming, without Nintendo!", because there are plenty more fish in the sea.

Quoting: slaapliedjeHow funny would it be if the next Nintendo console actually uses Yuzu for backward compatibility... and then the FSF sues them for not releasing the code changes...

Quoting: ToddLI was thinking the same thing since they brought something about not being sure if Switch 2 was going to be backwards compatible and I'd love it if FSF did come after them for it

Not this time, fellas - all current signs point to it using an updated chipset in the same family as the current hardware.

Quoting: Pengling

Quoting: ToddLGood thing I've rejected anything they've done for over a decade and counting and I'm glad that there are other games out there that interest me more than whatever they output.

Shameless plug for "Nintendo-style gaming, without Nintendo!", because there are plenty more fish in the sea.

Quoting: slaapliedjeHow funny would it be if the next Nintendo console actually uses Yuzu for backward compatibility... and then the FSF sues them for not releasing the code changes...

Quoting: ToddLI was thinking the same thing since they brought something about not being sure if Switch 2 was going to be backwards compatible and I'd love it if FSF did come after them for it

Not this time, fellas - all current signs point to it using an updated chipset in the same family as the current hardware.

I'd probably rather get a Legion GO if they sold a non-windows version, than I would another Nintendo console (my switch basically collects dust).

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: NozoSince Yuzu is under the GPLv3 license, someone should contact the FSF to keep an eye on Nintendo and begin tracking any potential GPL violation perpetuated by the company, Nintendo may want to see how far they can stretch this.

How funny would it be if the next Nintendo console actually uses Yuzu for backward compatibility... and then the FSF sues them for not releasing the code changes...

If Tropic Haze gave up the rights to Yuzu and its source code to Nintendo, Nintendo can relicense it to a proprietary license since the Yuzu project had a CLA, but that would not be retroactive.
But if Nintendo starts using community contributions licensed under the GPL they could get into serious trouble.

However, the tracking of potentail GPL violations would not only be for Yuzu but in general, although Nintendo has respected open source licenses, it is possible that they have violated some at some point in their history, and currently with such an aggressive stance they are more prone to make mistakes. And since there are not yet many precedents set around copyleft licenses, winning such a case would be a great victory for the free software and open source movements.


Last edited by Sumi on 22 March 2024 at 5:49 pm UTC

Quoting: Purple Library Guy[
And there is an answer to the question. The answer is "No, businesses should not have that right. If I buy something, I should be able to do anything I want with it that isn't illegal for real reasons unconnected with that business' ability to exploit me." In fact, the whole thing where when you buy software you are claimed to have "licensed" it and have to click on a EULA is bullshit from start to finish. I don't sign a EULA when I buy a TV, even though it probably has software in it.

Hypothetically speaking what do you think about a creator, indie developer etc.. that wants to place their game on a Switch, NDS, 3DS or Wii-U because they want for it to be played in a specific way (locked to that hardware) because its part of the experience and creative vision they wanted to share because all of the unique hardware mentioned (mostly.. excluding the switch) compared with other generic platforms like PC.

Forgetting the hardware vendor for a moment (sony, microsoft, nintendo, valve etc..) Do you think the seller has a right to keep their creative vision locked into a specific platform because that is both

a.) where they expected to sell it

and

b.) how they wished it to be played ?

Or does the creator, artist developer have no right to expect this ?

Although companies are chasing their bottom line, is there a possibility they are protecting their platform retailers by making it legally difficult to copy/pirate emulate their games because the developer themselves actively wanted to only sell on one platform ? (yes we can be cynical here but even so)

of course they could release on PC, they could also spend more limited development money porting to other consoles.. everything that's available in fact including android. But that's not always possible.

Devils advocate here ofc. im a Linux user after all and don't support DRM.
That said i don't support total software / hardware anarchy either i do think there is a right of the seller to choose how their content is delivered even if just for the simple facts of cross platform development costs. I may not like it though but i do support their freedom to choose.

i know this isn't strictly on topic. but i value your input


Last edited by Lofty on 22 March 2024 at 5:51 pm UTC

[quote=Lofty]

Quoting: Purple Library Guy[
Hypothetically speaking what do you think about a creator, indie developer etc.. that wants to place their game on a Switch, NDS, 3DS or Wii-U because they want for it to be played in a specific way (locked to that hardware) because its part of the experience and creative vision they wanted to share because all of the unique hardware mentioned (mostly.. excluding the switch) compared with other generic platforms like PC.

Forgetting the hardware vendor for a moment (sony, microsoft, nintendo, valve etc..) Do you think the seller has a right to keep their creative vision locked into a specific platform because that is both

a.) where they expected to sell it

and

b.) how they wished it to be played ?

Or does the creator, artist developer have no right to expect this ?

No, because it goes against antitrust laws, since it is creating a de facto monopoly within a platform where the hardware vendor has an unfair advantage against any potential competitor, that is why Apple lost, and if another relevant company starts to complain and sue the vendors of traditional video game consoles can use that case as a precedent and/or to support their arguments.

Sony and Nintendo fiercely protect that because there are much greater dangers than what piracy can hypothethically cause, and these dangers are called third-party storefronts with better conditions for both developers and users, including lower commission fees, and this is precisely because that It is legitimate competition. Also keep in mind that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft make their profits from all games and apps sold in their respective stores. This is nothing new, any company is going to protect its monopoly, and obviously that's something they have no right to.

EULAs are still contracts, and not everything said in a EULA can be enforced, and contracts that involve illegal activities are void. Certainly private monopolies are one of them.


Last edited by Sumi on 22 March 2024 at 6:36 pm UTC

Quoting: LoftyNot that i ever want to side with a giant mega corporation but i can kind of understand the perspective on switch emulation, i mean people are emulating games that are practically day one release on emulators, sometimes games that have been leaked. And there was a whole highly visible monetary aspect to it too. Emulation is meant for game preservation and nostalgia (edit* i stand corrected.. not exclusively) It's not very nostalgic emulating a current gen game on non supported hardware and it's not a game that needs preserving whilst its still on immediate sale.

The whole name of this project is obviously a troll towards Nintendo too so their reaction was to be expected.

Emulation will continue though. one way or another, which is great.

Yeah I certainly get that sentiment, I've seen some people say they buy these games even though they don't own a switch just to download them off the Internet. The vast majority obviously don't but I commend the people who do

I've always felt conflicted myself, I've had a switch for years and loved that it was small enough to be a little companion for my pc, fits nicely on a desk, I love platformer and switch has some great 1st party titles in that regard

On the other foot, I love emulation, nintendo have shut down entire rom sites before which denied people not just their own software, but other software like Japenese to English translated rpg games, or random Taiwan mega drive games that I love to collect

They even go as far to say people aren't allowed to dump their own cartridges which depending on region depends on legality but in Japan AFAIK its illegal to dump your own games and thats how Nintendo wants it :(

Hell, my main interest in things like yuzu is being able to play the Virtua Racing re-release that for some stupid reason is switch exclusive, and it forces me to use sideway joycon when playing splitscreen, I much rather get a bunch of xbox controllers out


Last edited by Doktor-Mandrake on 22 March 2024 at 6:38 pm UTC

On a other side note

I really hope this doesn't have a negative impact for switch users with Nintendos next console

98% of my switch library is all physical media, I've always gone out my way to only buy physical games with the entire game on them.

Denuvo works on switch and I feel like they might push hard putting drm on their software in the future. This is disappointing for me as its less likely I'll be willing to put down 60 quid of my hard earned money on games that will lock me out without Internet.

Quoting: LoftyBTW It's of course somewhat scandalous to DRM a printer cartridge, although there is always a (weak) counter argument that a 3rd party cartridge could destroy the printer.

Random tangent: it occurs to me that if there were actually a non-infinitesimal chance of a 3rd-party cartridge destroying a printer, printer companies should be all over getting people to use them: "Oh, how sad, that 3rd-party cartridge broke your printer? Welp, guess you learned a lesson, and guess where you need to spend more money getting a replacement printer!" The fact that they'd rather sell obscenely expensive ink with DRM tells me that they know they can get a lot more money that way than from hypothetical printer replacements.

Quoting: LoftyForgetting the hardware vendor for a moment (sony, microsoft, nintendo, valve etc..) Do you think the seller has a right to keep their creative vision locked into a specific platform because that is both

a.) where they expected to sell it

and

b.) how they wished it to be played ?

Or does the creator, artist developer have no right to expect this ?

I don't think so, no. Consider a hypothetical example: someone makes, say, a puzzle game that plays on a touchscreen, with no sound effects. Someone blind wishes to play it, so someone else releases a version (don't worry about the details) that works on a different, tactile interface, maybe with added sound cues, etc., whatever is required to make it playable without sight. Does the creator have a right to say, "No!!! It's only to be played on a touchscreen, anything else is destroying the artistic integrity of the work and isn't how I wanted it to be played!"? (For a real-world example, think of the modders releasing Half-Life: Alyx for non-VR systems for people who can't handle playing in VR.)

Yes, you can indicate how you want people to experience your work. But Death of the Author is a thing, and once a work is out in the real world you can't realistically stop people from poking, prodding, and transforming it; that's just how art and culture work, new things transforming and building upon what came before.

Quoting: Doktor-MandrakeHell, my main interest in things like yuzu is being able to play the Virtua Racing re-release that for some stupid reason is switch exclusive, and it forces me to use sideway joycon when playing splitscreen, I much rather get a bunch of xbox controllers out

speaking of emulation, if your talking about the OG Sega Virtua Racing then the best version is on the PS2.

upscaled to 4k ofc ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy6hK4AbYw0

Quoting: Lofty

Quoting: Purple Library Guy[
And there is an answer to the question. The answer is "No, businesses should not have that right. If I buy something, I should be able to do anything I want with it that isn't illegal for real reasons unconnected with that business' ability to exploit me." In fact, the whole thing where when you buy software you are claimed to have "licensed" it and have to click on a EULA is bullshit from start to finish. I don't sign a EULA when I buy a TV, even though it probably has software in it.

Hypothetically speaking what do you think about a creator, indie developer etc.. that wants to place their game on a Switch, NDS, 3DS or Wii-U because they want for it to be played in a specific way (locked to that hardware) because its part of the experience and creative vision they wanted to share because all of the unique hardware mentioned (mostly.. excluding the switch) compared with other generic platforms like PC.

Forgetting the hardware vendor for a moment (sony, microsoft, nintendo, valve etc..) Do you think the seller has a right to keep their creative vision locked into a specific platform because that is both

a.) where they expected to sell it

and

b.) how they wished it to be played ?

Or does the creator, artist developer have no right to expect this ?

They have a right to express a preference about it. But I don't think they have a right to enforce it. If I buy a gorgeous tapestry and decide I want to use it to wipe my butt, whoever made the tapestry can reasonably be horrified but they should have no legal right to stop me.

Quoting: Lofty

Quoting: Doktor-MandrakeHell, my main interest in things like yuzu is being able to play the Virtua Racing re-release that for some stupid reason is switch exclusive, and it forces me to use sideway joycon when playing splitscreen, I much rather get a bunch of xbox controllers out

speaking of emulation, if your talking about the OG Sega Virtua Racing then the best version is on the PS2.

upscaled to 4k ofc ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy6hK4AbYw0

The switch release is very special to me as its more like a remaster, made by m2

It's very similar in concept to the rerelease of Daytona USA ON xbox 360 and ps3, based off the arcade versions but with higher resolutions and much better draw distance

The switch release even allows up to 8 player splitscreen, a call back to the arcade days with 8 cabs next to each other

But it shouldn't be locked to switch, especially with the lack of wheel support. About 5 years ago I was round my friends playing on his xbox one with a racing wheel hooked up, daytona usa through backwards compat, the wheel works flawlessly, even has forcefeedback!

It's crazy to me that sega made a really good remaster of VR and haven't added it to be pc and xbox with wheel support.

I even went as far to try and emulate the joycon on my wheel using yuzu 🤣 as you would expect it didn't turn out great

Quoting: Doktor-MandrakeDenuvo works on switch and I feel like they might push hard putting drm on their software in the future.

That's already going on, so I would definitely expect it to increase.

Quoting: PhiladelphusI don't think so, no. Consider a hypothetical example: someone makes, say, a puzzle game that plays on a touchscreen, with no sound effects. Someone blind wishes to play it, so someone else releases a version (don't worry about the details) that works on a different, tactile interface, maybe with added sound cues, etc., whatever is required to make it playable without sight. Does the creator have a right to say, "No!!! It's only to be played on a touchscreen, anything else is destroying the artistic integrity of the work and isn't how I wanted it to be played!"? (For a real-world example, think of the modders releasing Half-Life: Alyx for non-VR systems for people who can't handle playing in VR.)

Nintendo doesn't see it that way, for sure! Until just a few years ago, Nintendo wouldn't even let people remap controls in almost all of their games on their own hardware*, and even when they added that feature on the Switch, it's incredibly clunky and the remap affects everything until you turn it off - Steam Deck Steam Input this ain't!

*Personally, I found Mario Kart DS (which is lauded by a lot of people) to be completely unplayable due to the one and only control layout expecting you to contort your right hand into the general shape of a crab's claw in order to actually play the game - it was an incredibly painful experience, and after clearing the cups I never bothered with the mission-mode, which was unique to that title and which people said was really the best part of it. The company really never improved on that front.

Quoting: LoftyDevils advocate here ofc. im a Linux user after all and don't support DRM.
That said i don't support total software / hardware anarchy either i do think there is a right of the seller to choose how their content is delivered even if just for the simple facts of cross platform development costs. I may not like it though but i do support their freedom to choose.

I don't think anyone doing emulation is claiming that Nintendo or whoever should be forced to do cross-platform development and deliver their software on all platforms. The whole point of emulation is to make up for the fact that the makers of the software did not do this--to in fact do that work, and pay those costs, for them.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI don't think anyone doing emulation is claiming that Nintendo or whoever should be forced to do cross-platform development and deliver their software on all platforms.

Since they're so attached to releasing vastly-underpowered hardware that isn't price-competitive with other offerings (which was a fair approach in the past because their style of content and refusal to bow to DLC and subscriptions and so on were the differentiator, but not so much these days when Nintendo is like any other company now and you can get plenty of old-Nintendo-like experiences without Nintendo being in the picture at all), and since I'm sure after what happened with Palworld (which outsold in a month what the most recent Pokemon title sold in an entire year) there'll be questions from their shareholders, I'd honestly be interested in seeing a compromise much like Sony makes with their PC releases. That being, exclusive first, then PC later.

I can't even fathom the numbers that Nintendo would sell if, when they introduce their next console, they start selling emulator-wrapped re-releases of stuff from a couple of generations back, giving it a new life for presumably quite little outlay, whilst not eating into their current offerings. They've already sold 1.2 billion units of Switch software over the last seven years, and again, given the Palworld thing above, there's clearly an audience outside of their platforms that would very likely be interested.


Last edited by Pengling on 22 March 2024 at 9:24 pm UTC

Quoting: Pengling

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI don't think anyone doing emulation is claiming that Nintendo or whoever should be forced to do cross-platform development and deliver their software on all platforms.

Since they're so attached to releasing vastly-underpowered hardware that isn't price-competitive with other offerings (which was a fair approach in the past because their style of content and refusal to bow to DLC and subscriptions and so on were the differentiator, but not so much these days when Nintendo is like any other company now and you can get plenty of old-Nintendo-like experiences without Nintendo being in the picture at all), and since I'm sure after what happened with Palworld (which outsold in a month what the most recent Pokemon title sold in an entire year) there'll be questions from their shareholders, I'd honestly be interested in seeing a compromise much like Sony makes with their PC releases. That being, exclusive first, then PC later.

I can't even fathom the numbers that Nintendo would sell if, when they introduce their next console, they start selling emulator-wrapped re-releases of stuff from a couple of generations back, giving it a new life for presumably quite little outlay, whilst not eating into their current offerings. They've already sold 1.2 billion units of Switch software over the last seven years, and again, given the Palworld thing above, there's clearly an audience outside of their platforms that would very likely be interested.

I can't see Nintendo going the same route as Sony when releasing their games on PC because they seem to be that type of company that loves to stick to traditions, even if their shareholders wants them to expand like they did when they put some games on mobile phones. Also, I can't imagine their team would be able to make their games shine on PC and would do the absolute minimum amount of work to charge the customers $70 like they do on consoles. Overall, they'll continue to do what they do best by giving customer underpowered devices while raking in the money with their first party games despite the fact that their games could look a lot better with powerful hardware.

Quoting: ToddLI can't see Nintendo going the same route as Sony when releasing their games on PC because they seem to be that type of company that loves to stick to traditions, even if their shareholders wants them to expand like they did when they put some games on mobile phones.

Oh, for sure - I don't see them actually doing it, they're far too stuck in the past! I just think that it'd be an interesting and likely very profitable approach.

Quoting: ToddLAlso, I can't imagine their team would be able to make their games shine on PC and would do the absolute minimum amount of work to charge the customers $70 like they do on consoles.

Cue the song. And they'll stick Denuvo on it.

Quoting: ToddLOverall, they'll continue to do what they do best by giving customer underpowered devices while raking in the money with their first party games despite the fact that their games could look a lot better with powerful hardware.

To be fair, I think there's a point of diminishing returns with the art-style of most of their big franchises, so I can see why they don't lean towards more-powerful devices - I feel that their biggest immediate problem (aside from all the anti-consumer stuff) is that they've become a lot less willing to take risks and try out new ideas, and have ended up chasing trends instead of starting them.


Last edited by Pengling on 24 March 2024 at 5:07 pm UTC

What we need is a world in which Nintendo is no longer relevant to the next generation of kids.

What we need is for developers to outright rip off Nintendo's style of games, but make them multiplatform.

That way, people and parents no longer have to feel reliant on buying Nintendo's consoles for those sort of games.

Pokémon, 3D Mario, 2D Mario, Smash Bros, Zelda, Metroid, Mario Kart or Animal Crossing are the main franchises which sell like 30 million copies every time, right? So we need clones of all of these games.

I hope tomorrows generation of kids are like "Nintendo-who?", "Mario-who?" and they go back to playing some 3D Mario ripoff (which hopefully is actually good) on their £40 Amazon Fire tablet, which their parents bought them.

I'm sour about Yuzu not fighting against that DMCA. The legal precedent for emulation is in their favor whether they were selling early access to builds or not. It's THEIR work.

The more Ls Nintendo gets to hand out to the community then the more they're going to bully people until whatever they want eventually becomes law through lawsuit after lawsuit. Somebody needs to prove they're more bark than bite and push them back into the corner they were in when Sony lost the Bleem case. They can gaslight people all they want but a DMCA complaint is a warning at best and amounts to absolutely nothing if they do not have legal ground to begin with, and they don't. All Nintendo has is lots of money and lots of time to waste. Maybe that's the problem but seeing as Yuzu was kind of a big deal and was fairly profitable off donations alone for a community project I don't see why they couldn't afford a court battle.

Quoting: bonkmaykrbut seeing as Yuzu was kind of a big deal and was fairly profitable off donations alone for a community project I don't see why they couldn't afford a court battle.

Because a court battle against the likes of Nintendo is really, really expensive.