Hacker News Reader

Comment by nerdjon | Hacker News Reader

I am all for there being emulators for past consoles as a form of preservation as the hardware gets harder and harder to get. Has Nintendo ever gone after Dolphin except for the Steam thing?

But, emulating a current console is not about preservation. It just isn't. You can try to say it is, but no. Maybe, maybe you could argue that you are putting in the work now so it's ready when it's needed. But then be careful about putting it out there.

Just go look at the steam deck subreddit and how often Switch games are talked about, I can't imagine Nintendo was very happy about that. This wasn't just some small project that people did not really know about or served a niche purpose.

This as asking for trouble and I am surprised it took so long honestly.

Edit:

Don't get me wrong, I hate exclusives and I wish the practice would end. But that is the current state of things and the choices leading up to this were questionable at best.

Edit Again:

Hold up, Yuzu was an actual company and had a Patreon bringing in over $29k a month? Yeah um, Nintendo has been bad but that's a choice for a current console. It is no surprise Nintendo went after them.

View on HN

Obviously piracy plays a large (maybe the largest?) role here, though I wouldn't overlook the modding use case. I would be quite interested in running titles I legitimately own on more powerful hardware where I can play around with the resolution and framerate freely (and would have already used Yuzu for this purpose by now, but for laziness).

This is the only reason I have Yuzu installed - I own Tears of the Kingdom legitimately but the Switch is such a piece of underpowered, overpriced junk that I'll never replay the game on real hardware, when I can instead be playing at 1440p and 60fps with all kinds of enhancements on PC.

ok yeah that is valid.

I just have a very hard time believing that, like you said, the majority of the use case is anything other than piracy.

I mean almost every emulation software somewhere says that you should only emulate games you own, but how many of us actually still own our NES or gamecube games that we may have downloaded. But it's easier to justify given that stuff not being easily accessible anymore, we don't even have a proper eshop for emulation on the Switch.

> I just have a very hard time believing that, like you said, the majority of the use case is anything other than piracy.

Even if this is true, torrent clients are predominantly used for piracy too and they don't get sued. Neither are explicitly designed to facilitate it.

Can anyone explain why Yuzu's case is different?

I feel like the difference here should be fairly obvious.

One is an open protocol, and one is proprietary technology. AWS even at one point supported the protocol.

I don't know if it's still a thing but it wasn't terribly uncommon to find Linux distros and other legitimate things shared through that protocol.

Here we are talking about proprietary technology by Nintendo. On a system that they are currently selling and making money on.

Given how much money they were bring in on patrion, it isn't much different than if they tried to make a physical knock off switch that could run switch games.

> it isn't much different than if they tried to make a physical knock off switch that could run switch games.

Over in computer land we would call that "IBM PC Compatible".

I think it'd be closer to a Hackintosh.

Anyone else old enough to remember Connectix Virtual Game Station [1] for, like, MacOS 9 I think?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix_Virtual_Game_Station

> Here we are talking about proprietary technology by Nintendo.

x86 is also proprietary technology that Intel is currently making money on. Should Intel be able to sue AMD out of existence?

NVIDIA's GPU specs are proprietary technology that NVIDIA is currently making money on. Should NVIDIA be able to shut down Nouveau?

Flash is proprietary technology that Adobe still sells under the name Adobe Animate. Should Adobe be able to shut down Ruffle?

> x86 is also proprietary technology. Should Intel be able to sue AMD out of existence?

AMD has a perpetual license from Intel to use the technology.

Nouveau is different, you are still buying Nvidia cards just running an open source driver. Nvidia doesn't make money on their drivers, they make money on the graphics cards.

Similar situation to Ruffle, Adobe never charged for the end user to download flash. It was free. Ruffle is an alternative to that. Also it is worth mentioning that flash is all but dead and this really just keeps it breathing.

While both companies probably could make an argument to argue for a take down of both, they have no incentive to do it.

> AMD has a perpetual license from Intel to use the technology.

AMD only managed to negotiate that because Intel lost in arbitration [1]. Intel's preferred option was always to eliminate AMD entirely. It's good for us consumers that they didn't succeed in that!

> While both companies probably could make an argument to argue for a take down of both, they have no incentive to do it.

NVIDIA absolutely has an incentive to get rid of Nouveau. Its existence discloses IP (their GPU inner workings) that they would prefer to keep secret.

More examples: JavaScript was proprietary technology at the time. The fact that it was specific to Netscape browsers absolutely benefited Netscape's business model. The existence of Chrome depends on the fact that Netscape had no grounds to go after Microsoft for an independent implementation.

SMB is a proprietary Microsoft technology. '90s Microsoft would definitely have preferred to keep that specific to Windows in order to sell more Windows licenses. It's good for the industry that Microsoft never felt they could go after Samba.

Another fun one: The FBX file format, which Autodesk makes money on through Maya, has a half-hearted attempt at DRM in it to limit it to approved Autodesk licensees. Blender's FBX exporter breaks it with a pass-the-hash attack. Get rid of that and Blender can no longer talk to Unity. Obviously, the entire industry benefits from the fact that Autodesk can't go after Blender for this.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD#IBM_PC_and_the_x86_archite...

> AMD only managed to negotiate that because Intel lost in arbitration [1]. Intel's preferred option was always to eliminate AMD entirely. It's good for us consumers that they didn't succeed in that!

OK? regardless of why or how it happened, it happened and it means that AMD is fine. If you knew that I don't know why you even mentioned it in the first place.

> NVIDIA absolutely has an incentive to get rid of Nouveau. Its existence discloses IP (their GPU inner workings) that they would prefer to keep secret.

Any articles to back that up? Seems counter to Nvidia offering support in publishing documents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouveau_(software)#History

> Another fun one: The FBX file format, which Autodesk makes money on through Maya, has a half-hearted attempt at DRM in it to limit it to approved Autodesk licensees. Blender's FBX exporter breaks it with a pass-the-hash attack. Get rid of that and Blender can no longer talk to Unity. Obviously, the entire industry benefits from the fact that Autodesk can't go after Blender for this.

Again would love an article on this. I can't find anything backing up that this ever happened. Not only on Audodesk's website do they mention third party software but they have an SDK for this file format for others to use. While blender does in fact not use that SDK, and the format is proprietary, I can't find anything backing up what you claim.

> OK? regardless of why or how it happened, it happened and it means that AMD is fine.

AMD is only fine because Intel wasn't able to sue them out of existence. If Intel had managed to do in the 90s what Nintendo did to Yuzu just now, there'd be no Ryzen today.

> Seems counter to Nvidia offering support in publishing documents

NVIDIA only started publishing documents because Nouveau's success in reverse engineering meant that it was pointless trying to pretend that the genie could be put back in the bottle. Nintendo undoubtedly knows this too; lawsuits like this in 2024 ultimately aren't rational moves on their part, but big conservative Japanese companies have never been known to be particularly adaptable.

> Again would love an article on this. I can't find anything backing up that this ever happened. Not only on Audodesk's website do they mention third party software but they have an SDK for this file format for others to use. While blender does in fact not use that SDK, and the format is proprietary, I can't find anything backing up what you claim.

I found it myself when I was documenting the FBX file format (which I eventually gave up on because it was too horrifying of a format to motivate continuing) [1]. Blender calls it "CRC rules", but I think it's actually an attempt to lock non-licensees out. The SDK is closed-source, proprietary, and comes with a whole bunch of restrictions in its EULA.

[1]: https://github.com/blender/blender-addons/blob/main/io_scene...

>x86 is also proprietary technology that Intel is currently making money on. Should Intel be able to sue AMD out of existence?

AMD has a license to the x86 architecture, alongside Via (though I'm not sure if they even make x86 chips anymore). I'm sure Intel would love to take back AMD's license, but they're probably too afraid of antitrust actions to try.

Intel won't revoke AMD's license, because they themselves are licensing the 64-bit architecture from AMD. It's called amd64 for a reason.

Yep. It's a great example of how keeping clean-room reverse engineering legal is good for the industry. While Intel was stuck in Itanium hell, AMD was able to leapfrog them and create x86-64 because it had been legally successful with reverse engineering 32-bit x86 in the past. If Intel had been able to crush AMD in the 90s, there's a good chance x86 would be dead by now.

Android built their own implementation of the proprietary Java language to be able to run programs that were written to run on the official JRE. Can you imagine if Oracle tried to sue Google over that? :)

> Given how much money they were bring in on patrion, it isn't much different than if they tried to make a physical knock off switch that could run switch games.

Why would that be a problem? As long as they're not actually violating trademarks or patents and making an actual counterfeit product, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to make their own hardware that is compatible with Switch games.

These products already exist for other systems, and they are a good way to allow you to play your existing games on more modern hardware.

Just because it upsets some executive at Nintendo doesn't make it illegal.

A torrent client is data agnostic. It can be used to transfer any type of data over the internet.

Yuzu is designed to play specific software which is quite difficult to acquire by legal means. Very little effort appears to have been spent on improving the UX of the legal process.

(It is true that Yuzu can also play homebrew software. I think the situation would be different if Yuzu was tested exclusively on Homebrew, and only emulated features which homebrew software uses. But then no one would care about Yuzu. Yuzu has tons of game-specific fixes for commercial titles.)

> (It is true that Yuzu can also play homebrew software. I think the situation would be different if Yuzu was tested exclusively on Homebrew, and only emulated features which homebrew software uses. But then no one would care about Yuzu. Yuzu has tons of game-specific fixes for commercial titles.)

Yuzu can also play games that were backed up by people who legitimately own the game. The legality of that might be questionable in the US, but not everywhere.

Pretty great that you can still get functioning N64 THPS2 carts for...sixty bucks on Ebay.

>emulating a current console is not about preservation. It just isn't

So we should all just wait until they stop selling a console before working to emulate it?

Just imagine if they had this attitude when it came to reverse engineering IBM PC's bios.

Did you... not even read the entire line that you decided to just quote part of?

> But, emulating a current console is not about preservation. It just isn't. You can try to say it is, but no. Maybe, maybe you could argue that you are putting in the work now so it's ready when it's needed. But then be careful about putting it out there.

IBM published the full BIOS listing and schematics. There wasn't much to RE.

If it's still being actively sold, why would the emulator be needed or distributed? It's a bullshit argument for current consoles.

>But, emulating a current console is not about preservation.

Today's present is tomorrow's past.

Especially considering that consoles have a less than stellar support from manufacturers, they just move on to the next console and you can say goodbye to your games, especially nowadays with game servers.

Nintendo have typically been pretty good with backwards compatibility as newer versions of consoles come out. GBAs could play GB/GBC games. DS could play GBA games. 3DS could play DS. Wii could play GC games. Wii U could play Wii games.

The Switch is an outlier in that regard but mostly because the hardware is so different from previous consoles. It could never support the 2 screens required for DS/3DS or some Wii U games, nor is it big enough to fit Wii U disks anyway. But it wouldn't surprise me if the Switch 2 could play Switch 1 games.

Nintendo also typically put entire games on their cartridges, and day 1 patches are for bug fixes only and are optional. If you keep the cartridges and your console, you keep your games perfectly fine. Or you can go out and buy cartridges second hand. And digital downloads will also still function, like my 3DS still has my digital purchases even if the eshop is gone. I just can't purchase new games anymore, for a 12 year old system.

> Hold up, Yuzu was an actual company and had a Patreon bringing in over $29k a month? Yeah um, Nintendo has been bad but that's a choice for a current console. It is no surprise Nintendo went after them.

LOL

Yeah, as much as I am an anti-fan of Nintendo, it sounds like this company was asking to get sued.

Making a big company angry is supposed to be legal.

It is legal, and you can spend all your money (and more) on lawyers' fees to prove it!

But we don't have to cheer on that company.

> But, emulating a current console is not about preservation. It just isn't.

No, but it CAN be used as a tool to play legitimate copies of games on different hardware. A few people on this thread have said they do this. I haven't done it yet, but I'll probably dump the Switch games I want to play on my Deck instead of carrying the switch also.

> emulating a current console is not about preservation. It just isn't. You can try to say it is, but no. Maybe, maybe you could argue that you are putting in the work now so it's ready when it's needed. But then be careful about putting it out there.

What do you think of piracy in general? When would you consider pirating a PC game would be acceptable?

The reality is that the modern gaming industry is actively hostile to the consumer. Content is locked behind intrusive DRM, store front exclusivity deals, licensing terms that may revoke your access at any point, obnoxious launchers, always online requirements, reliance on servers that may disappear at any moment, insidious subscriptions, microtransactions, and many other schemes ranging from shady to borderline illegal. Hype-driven marketing pushing pre-orders based on lies, followed by empty promises of multi-year roadmaps to get games in a playable state. Yearly releases of rehashed and reskinned content, low-effort and premature "remasters"... The list goes on and on.

Is someone who plays a pirated version of a game they purchased, but can't access anymore, in the wrong? Or how about if they prefer the pirated version because it gives a better experience? Or how about if they're tired of always getting the short end of the stick by playing by the rules? The law says they are, but are they really?

The morality here is not so black and white.

BTW, I agree with you that Yuzu was clearly overstepping the boundaries, and that it's no surprise Nintendo took them out. I just think that Nintendo doesn't necessarily have the moral high ground, and that there's a strong argument in favor of not only emulation, but piracy.

Folks. This is not about piracy at all. It is also not about copyrights or whatever.

It's about the shitty part of DMCA's anti-circumvention.

If you want to see how stupid this law is, look at the number of exemptions given for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...

I'll also go as far to say, if you support Nintendo here. You also are supporting Apple shutting down Asahi linux.

All Apple will need to claim is that Asahi is bypassing some "client side protection", and Asahi is shut down.

Apple Silicon machines have a "permissive security" mode which allows booting unsigned third party kernels. Asahi isn't circumventing anything, this is a officially supported feature.

> All Apple will need to claim is that Asahi is bypassing some "client side protection", and Asahi is shut down.

Is Asahi bypassing some client side protection?

Apple spent substantial engineering effort modifying their iOS bootloader so that Apple Silicon Macs could load third party kernels.

If Apple wanted to kill Asahi Linux, they could just remove this functionality from iBoot.

Apple will not remove this functionality, because they would not have added it in the first place if they did not want people to be able to use it.

>But, emulating a current console is not about preservation. It just isn't.

I disagree in the general case. Sure, beware of litigious companies, but it isn't immoral.

In the specific case of Yuzu bringing in cash from the endeavor, yes, I see why Nintendo did what they did.

---

Totally off-topic, but I have never bought a Switch despite liking the idea of all the games on it, because I don't want to pay $600 for a gameboy, 2-4 real controllers and a copy of Mario Party. I can't understand how it or Steam Deck is popular. But that's just me.

I don’t think preservation is an important argument. If I own an AppleTV, and I purchase a movie through their service, why should it be illegal for me to export that movie to watch on a different device? I own the hardware and the data, why would any law even care at that point?

Obviously piracy should be illegal, but I just don’t see any argument against emulation even if it is current.

For this reason, most of the major studios are members of Movies Anywhere, which allows you to access movies purchased at any (participating) storefront on any participating VOD service. Amazon, Fandango, Vudu, Disney, are participants.

True, but the example was just an example. Buying a game on PC and making it run on a PS5 - why would something like that ever be illegal?

It's generally not, because you can run an OS on a PS5 that can then run the game, and the DMCA allows for this (with some limitations) because, and this is a very important point: there is generally no DRM-hacking required. But...if DRM hacking is required to get a PC game to work on a PS5, it's illegal to do so under the DMCA. (Note: DRM is defined very broadly for DMCA purposes.)

Dolphin does require a bit of DRM hacking, but Dolphin (arguably) falls under one of the DCMA exceptions for archival use purposes. This is the second important point: the Dolphin emulates a system which has not been on sale for a decade. It's still possible* to use it for general piracy instead of archival access, but the archival use trumps the piracy concern. (It would be different though if the Dolphin developers started offering Dolphin on a commercial basis.)

But Yuzu is a commercial offering, for a console that is still on sale, and its use requires DRM hacking. So it's got 3 fatal flaws.

The only surprise is that Nintendo let it live as long as it has. You can bet they won't make that mistake again with their next console.

> ...and this is a very important point: there is generally no DRM-hacking required. But...if DRM hacking is required to get a PC game to work on a PS5, it's illegal to do so under the DMCA. (Note: DRM is defined very broadly for DMCA purposes.)

Wouldn't Steam, MSTF store, Epic, etc. all count as DRM? Regardless, it's more of a philosophical argument than a legal argument. If I buy the Switch and the game, I don't see how there could be any argument that I should be considered a criminal for using the data on a PC.

Wouldn't Steam, MSTF store, Epic, etc. all count as DRM?

They could, which is why I was careful to point out that you can install an OS on your PS5, on which you can then run (some) games on it without having to circumvent DRM.

If I buy the Switch and the game, I don't see how there could be any argument that I should be considered a criminal for using the data on a PC.

Because U.S. (and EU) law doesn't have any exceptions that would cover that use, since the Switch is still being actively sold on the market today. (And as noted elsewhere, this is a large part of why SNES, N64, and Gamecube emulators haven't been targeted by Nintendo: the machines are no longer sold and so emulation allows for archival use/access to games on those platforms. This is generally a permitted use.)

As far as I'm aware, the DMCA doesn't have any sort of exception for archival, but it does have one for software interoperability, which emulators definitely are, regardless of how current the hardware being emulated is.

You don't own the data, just a temporary right to use it.

Of course it's completely bonkers and the result of massive corporations bribing governments to limit our freedom.

As long as I don't sign a contract with an entity I should be able to do anything I want with bytes. Once I enter into an agreement not to share some data I received then I should be punishable - but no shortcuts, sue everyone in court with a due process and lawyer fees.

If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing.

Quite a pithy phrase that has been popular lately but piracy advocates have always claimed that piracy isn't stealing, regardless of whether or not "buying is owning" so I don't think the two are related.

> You don't own the data, just a temporary right to use it.

Agreed, bonkers. You didn't 'own the data' when it was a VCR recording a broadcast TV show or movie, but now it's all "but they broke our ROT13-super-crypto, throw the book at 'em".

Pretty sure the TOS of AppleTV prohibits exporting the movie - you have a limited license to view it only under the circumstances Apple dictates, in partnership with everyone Apple has deals with. If you want to be able to watch it on other devices, you need to purchase a limited perpetual license in the form of a DVD/bluray.

Now, of course, this depends on the movie having a physical release (which is becoming a bit of a rarity these days), but still, the MPAA has made sure to write ironclad contracts to prohibit watching streamed content the way you want.

The ToS has nothing to do with if something is legal or not.

> Obviously piracy should be illegal

Of course, piracy deprives other people of their property and/or lives which is not something we should accept. Neither is copyright.

So long as Nintendo doesn't end up going after emulators released before the Switch, then the de facto (not de jure) precedent is: don't release an emulator for their current latest console.

Overall, that's probably a mostly fine outcome for game preservation, and thinking about it more, it's probably much better for emulation and game preservation long term that Yuzu's devs settled instead of fighting this, as if they had lost and a legal precedent were set, many other emulators might have had to shut down or be hosted in countries where the DMCA doesn't apply. But with no legal precedent set here, emulators for consoles released before the Switch might very well be safe. Time will tell though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com