Hacker News Reader

Comment by MyFedora | Hacker News Reader

I don't think Nintendo's argument that Yuzu's primary use case is piracy holds any merit. Nintendo is quite literally a part of the reason why people pirate Switch games they already own.

What do you have to do to legally play Switch games on Yuzu? Oh, idk...

* Jailbreak your Switch.

* Dump your decryption keys.

* Dump your games.

* Never update your Switch ever again.

* Pray Nintendo doesn't shove an update down your throat.

* Void your warranty.

* Hope Nintendo won't brick your Switch.

How many people would use Yuzu legally if it weren't for Nintendo's anti-consumer practices? Nintendo can't just argue that Yuzu is made for piracy when Nintendo pushes people to piracy who legally own the Switch and Switch games in my opinion.

View on HN

I feel like you’re undermining your own argument here. Yes, it’s exceedingly complex to “legally” play your own games on Yuzu. This bolsters the argument that Yuzu is primarily targeting users of pirated content, because essentially no one would bother doing all those steps you listed.

I think MyFedora is suggesting that even if Yuzu's primary usecase is piracy, that's because it's so difficult to use Yuzu in the legit manner (due to Nintendo's DRM on the console/game you own).

Yep, and that also inflates the number of pirates since some of them pirate Switch games for ease of use they already bought.

I feel like it would be a lot more straightforward if people just came out and said that they think piracy should be legal.

Currently we have this weird mealy-mouthed roundabout discussions where people act ever so outraged at the idea that a tool or site is primarily used for piracy when anyone who's not hopelessly naïve recognizes that that's in fact what they're used for.

At best we get comments like yours that are anti-DRM...but still dance around the fact that being anti-DRM is being pro-piracy.

This isn't even about whether I support piracy. I just think it's oddly disingenuous to both treat piracy as a moral/legal wrong (else why the need to defend/excuse Yuzu's clear involvement?) and be shocked and outraged when an entity whose works have been pirated does something about it.

> I feel like it would be a lot more straightforward if people just came out and said that they think piracy should be legal.

I don't think Yuzu advocates are actually advocating piracy.

I think they think an illegal use of a tool should not mean the tool is banned.

"Emulators don't pirate games, pirates do."

I think our echo chamber will surface views amenable to this viewpoint. Emulation news is quite literally hacker news.

But we deceive ourselves with such a bubble, when the outside world doesn't lean our way. Downplaying piracy usage doesn't do us any favours when trying to build an accurate model.

I think you've phrased my point better than I did. What I meant was that to advocate for software like Yuzu to exist necessarily entails defending piracy, because outside of a tech echo chamber almost nobody is interested in an emulator existing for emulation's sake.

To illustrate what I mean...if credible stats were somehow collected and showed that 99% of Yuzu users were using it to run games they didn't pay for, I think plenty of judiciaries at that point would consider it a de facto pirating tool versus a tool that is incidentally used for piracy. If you think that this still doesn't mean that the project should be shut down or fined, then I think it's a lot more productive to advocate for such software to exist even if it's a pirating tool than to try to sell everyone on the idea that it's totally a minority that are using it as such. And I think that would require going back to the drawing board re: digital IP rights.

>but still dance around the fact that being anti-DRM is being pro-piracy

I think this is disingenuous, there's difference between being pro-piracy and against whatever inane terms publisher wants. There's argument that when you buy a game you can use it in any way you want, including playing it on different devices. Somewhat like first-sale doctrine.

I've clarified what I mean in a different comment[0]. But to speak to being anti-DRM in particular, I think it's either highly disingenuous or very naïve to argue that all or even anything close to a majority of people who are against DRM simply want to use digital media they've actually bought in any way that they want. It makes no sense to downplay the situation that led to the rise of DRM (and still persists today!) as if IP holders just one day decided to screw over their paying audiences for no reason. It's a lot more straightforward in my opinion to say you just don't care that people pirate games et al and/or that you don't consider it a real harm to an IP holder.

It's not as if anyone ever says or suggests anything to them when their works get pirated other than "it happens, sucks to be you" or even "have you tried pandering to the pirates so maybe a tiny percent of them will buy your work?" - so what then exactly is the point of piracy being illegal?

0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39533551

I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of those feelings, certainly not mine. DRM has no benefit to the consumer except in the abstract sense that it is needed to protect the product so a company can make more things in the future. Whatever. At best it is inoffensive and not noticable, but more typically it is an issue.

The vast majority of games on PC at this point do not have any DRM, or I guess I should say any meaningful DRM. Denuvo games being the most notable exception. But most games on Steam have literally nothing other than a paperthin basic license check for Steam which is circumventable in a dozen incredibly trivial and automated/generic ways.

PC seems to be doing pretty great as a platform, better than ever, even. Honestly I think it might be worth reframing/clarifying what you are defining as piracy. If I own a Switch (and I do.) And I own games on that platform that I purchased from the e-shop. (And I do.) and I play those games on my PC with Yuzu/Ryujinx is that piracy? I don't even mean in the legal sense, I just mean what you do you personally think?

The need to defend/excuse Yuzus clear involvement is makes for an incredibly leading question, but the simplest answer is that I don't think people are surprised that Nintendo is doing it, just that it is shitty and not only does it not actually address the issue, it has potentially hugely chilling effects on legitimate software development.

I understand why some people are rubbed a little wrong by very mature and well-developed emulation of a current-gen (technically) platform. 100% it is used in piracy. Does that mean it shouldn't exist though? I sure don't think so. And that opinion isn't because I'm pro-piracy.

For what it is worth, on its merits, Yuzu actually did take steps to prevent casual users from playing TOTK pre-release. But also I don't think it is Yuzu's fault because Nintendo had its game leak.

Companies want money. Nintendo wants money. Nintendo is entitled to think this any anything else is a threat to their bottom line and I'm not surprised by it. Nintendo is also failing to serve the market in a way that meets its needs and that is legitimate driver of switch emulation usage, legally or otherwise. I can't feel bad about that.

I don't know why people would have piled on to the Yuzu Patreon during the TOTK leak, given what they did to prevent its usage for that purpose on a base level. There is no strong reason to give the Yuzu team money on Patreon. Daily builds are cool but hardly critical. It is impressive how much they're making on Patreon but that isn't money that Nintendo is going to get back if Yuzu was struck from the platform either.

Being anti-DRM isn't being pro-piracy and that is a false equivalence that I really hate to see. The least protected platform is now increasingly supported by the two other hardware manufacturers (Neither MS first-party or the Sony published stuff is laden with any non-trivial DRM) and the never-ending doomsaying about the PC as a hotbed for piracy really doesn't seem to have panned out the way many have predicted.

DRM sucks. Can't play netflix above 720p outside of their app/edge on Windows. Capcom added DRM to many games that were several years old breaking mods and proton/steam deck compatibility. In a world where DRM didn't get in the way, fine. We don't live in that world and wanting to not be punished as a consumer because DRM overwhelmingly sucks doesn't seem like a hot take. My steam library is over 1,000 games deep. I pay for shit. I don't want to deal with bullshit.

> I feel like it would be a lot more straightforward if people just came out and said that they think piracy should be legal.

I don't believe piracy should be legal. I believe that copyright and trademarks are important for the creation of many types of interesting new works in society.

Nonetheless, I also think archiving history and having those archives (in their original format, to the closest degree possible, which is what many emulators try to achieve) widely accessible to the public is also important.

Flash memory in game cartridges degrade over time, and discs rot as well. In contrast to some here, I do not think DRM is inherently bad — preventing piracy can be important — but I do believe that DRM should be time limited. After about 10 to 15 years, I think one should be able to have a DRM-free version of whatever piece of media they purchased, be it a game, movie, TV show, etc. At that point, the console (or other device) should allow you to rip it and transfer those DRM-free files to other devices.

I don't think those files should be legally redistributable online (at least not after only one decade), but many users' consoles will break before the 10 year mark, and many consoles are not sold for more than 10 years at a time. I think requiring much more than roughly that amount of time before allowing DRM-free rips will just result in a lot of consumers not being able to play the games they purchased. I think legalizing piracy would destroy the gaming industry, but I think legally prohibiting the consumer from experiencing the media they purchased on future devices encroaches on their consumer rights and results in history being forgotten.

That said, I've never been a fan of Yuzu and Ryujinx releasing as early as they did. Approximately no new game sales have been lost due to RPCS3: by the time it became a useable enough emulator, no new PS3 games were being sold and a huge number of PS3 consoles had already stopped working. The same is true Xenia and the Xbox 360, PCSX2 and the PS2, and many other emulators. That's clearly not the case for Yuzu and Ryujinx though.

Still, while my feelings on Yuzu are somewhat negative due to when they released it, I do hope they ultimately win this lawsuit — if Yuzu isn't legal, it's very well possible that no home console emulator after the PS2 and GameCube era is legal, as they all arguably bypass DRM. Clearly, the existence of Yuzu has not harmed Nintendo all that much — they're currently the richest (though obviously not most valuable) company in Japan, with $11.44 billion in cash. The Switch has sold 139 million units and Tears of the Kingdom has sold over 20 million units. Yuzu clearly does not constitute a legitimate threat to the continuance of Nintendo making games, but Yuzu being shut down would pose a legitimate threat to the preservation of any video game released on consoles after around 2006.

Of course nobody dumps their own games, but it's really common for people who already own the games to download a pirated copy to play on emulator. That's how I use Yuzu and Citra (which is especially great, so I don't have to squint at the crappy 3DS screens).

Technically illegal, technically "piracy"? Probably! But morally, who cares.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com