Nintendo Update (03/04): Yuzu effectively surrenders without a fight, agrees to pay Nintendo $2.4 million and discontinues emulator

[Biggie]

49 minutes ago, HGLatinBoy said:

 4  by my count.

 

wii DSi Wii U and 3DS

 

none of your previous purchases transferred to Switch

And I don’t need them to transfer over. I’ve got them either on cart or downloaded digitally.

[Xbob42]

3 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

Having a patreon that unlocks builds is skirting the line a bit.  No idea if they could legally go after them for that.  The emulator itself could be squeaky clean but they’re still using the Switch ecosystem to make money essentially.  But hopefully you’re right.

Bleem established legal precedent ages ago that you are entitled to be paid for your emulator, nothing to skirt. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, ShreddieMercury said:

Yeah, I don't really understand emulating games that are still commercially available.  I'm so thankful to be able to emulate games that are no longer playable or purchasable on any service, but having an emulator for a current generation system where surely the majority of all uses are purely for piracy seems strange.  Nobody is entitled to Nintendo games on PC, it's such a weird discussion.

Wrong.

I am legally entitled to emulate software that I own on other platforms.

Nintendo also can't do anything to prevent me from using those emulators to get a better frame rate, higher resolution and other features beyond what their hardware allows.

I would prefer that they release their games on PC directly, so I don't have to emulate them but their decision not to doesn't change my right to emulate.

[best3444]

32 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Wrong.

I am legally entitled to emulate software that I own on other platforms.

Nintendo also can't do anything to prevent me from using those emulators to get a better frame rate, higher resolution and other features beyond what their hardware allows.

I would prefer that they release their games on PC directly, so I don't have to emulate them but their decision not to doesn't change my right to emulate.

 

What's stopping Nintendo from releasing their games to PC? I don't understand it from a financial sense. 

[Keyser_Soze]

2 hours ago, ShreddieMercury said:

Yeah, I don't really understand emulating games that are still commercially available.  I'm so thankful to be able to emulate games that are no longer playable or purchasable on any service, but having an emulator for a current generation system where surely the majority of all uses are purely for piracy seems strange.  Nobody is entitled to Nintendo games on PC, it's such a weird discussion.

 

It's as simple as this: The switch is a toaster, games look bad and run poorly on it. Through emulation you can play your copy of Metroid Dread at a nice sexy 60 with a higher resolution.

 

To me emulation isn't purely about playing the game. It is playing the game better and making it look better than it previously could. There are some purists who like to keep it looking ugly but something like Duckstation where you can remove texture warping, run it at higher resolutions and frame rate is just icing on the cake.

 

Sure a switch game is available now, but playing it in higher fidelity and better performing is a lot more desirable.

[AbsolutSurgen]

16 minutes ago, best3444 said:

 

What's stopping Nintendo from releasing their games to PC? I don't understand it from a financial sense. 

I have no personal insight into Nintendo's decision making process.

[TwinIon]

No one should be under the impression that this is a slam dunk court case for Yuzu. Copyright law is weird and non-deterministic, and there is absolutely enough space for Nintendo to win on at least some counts. I look at Google v Oracle and think that Yuzu may well lose that case based on the criteria SCOTUS came up with, even if Yuzu might not be dealing with APIs in exactly the same way. Despite what some gamers would like to believe, there isn't a clear cut "right" to emulation.

 

The whole right to repair movement is tackling very similar issues of what rights you have to something that you have purchased, and I think it's telling that they're not cementing their rights by taking John Deer or Apple to court, they're passing laws. If it remains an open question as to if you have the right to fix a broken tractor without the OEM's parts or software, it's definitely an open question as to what you can do with software you purchased.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Copyright Act

LAWS-LOIS.JUSTICE.GC.CA

---

Federal laws of Canada

Quote

Computer Programs

Permitted acts

30.6 It is not an infringement of copyright in a computer program for a person who owns a copy of the computer program that is authorized by the owner of the copyright, or has a licence to use a copy of the computer program, to

(a) reproduce the copy by adapting, modifying or converting it, or translating it into another computer language, if the person proves that the reproduced copy

(i) is essential for the compatibility of the computer program with a particular computer,

(ii) is solely for the person’s own use, and

(iii) was destroyed immediately after the person ceased to be the owner of the copy of the computer program or to have a licence to use it; or

(b) reproduce for backup purposes the copy or a reproduced copy referred to in paragraph (a) if the person proves that the reproduction for backup purposes was destroyed immediately after the person ceased to be the owner of the copy of the computer program or to have a licence to use it.

I have a clear right to emulate in Canada.  I'll let the lawyers in the US determine the law for most of the rest of you.

[Biggie]

2 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Copyright Act

LAWS-LOIS.JUSTICE.GC.CA

---

Federal laws of Canada

I have a clear right to emulate in Canada.  I'll let the lawyers in the US determine the law for most of the rest of you.

[best3444]

20 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

I have no personal insight into Nintendo's decision making process.

 

I was only asking for your opinion...

[ShreddieMercury]

Games have always been able to run better and look better on PC.  Again, just because you don't like Nintendo's hardware, or think it should be more powerful, does not entitle you to play their games on different hardware.  People are talking about this issue as if we have some sort of right to access and play any and all games however we choose, which is wild. 

 

While the legality of emulating a video game that you own is already settled, something much more gray like Yuzu, which makes money emulating commercially available software and is directly enabling piracy for the vast majority of users, is not nearly as clear cut.

[Brian]

I use emulators because either hardware fails or I ain’t keeping a fucking Wii U with a tablet around my house. Now if Nintendo wants release Wind Waker on Switch, I’ll buy it. If not, I’ll emulate it. 

[Spork3245]

15 minutes ago, ShreddieMercury said:

which makes money

What? Yuzu makes money? You can support them via patreon for beta build access, but yuzu is free. 

[crispy4000]

28 minutes ago, ShreddieMercury said:

People are talking about this issue as if we have some sort of right to access and play any and all games however we choose, which is wild.

 

Within the legal limits, sure.  There is a right to use things you paid for in a non-illegal fashion.  Tech would be better off if this principle was more universally applied, as right-to-repair is pushing for.

 

Some Nintendo fans would like to see modding made illegal, took personal offense to Project M, etc.  Overzealous opinions are present on both sides.

[AbsolutSurgen]

48 minutes ago, best3444 said:

 

I was only asking for your opinion...

I think they are a very conservative company that is very slow to change.

[TwinIon]

1 hour ago, best3444 said:

What's stopping Nintendo from releasing their games to PC? I don't understand it from a financial sense. 

I think it's interesting how this conversation has shifted over the years. Not very long ago it wouldn't have even been considered remotely plausible that it would financially benefit Nintendo to release games on the PC, and I don't think the actual merits have changed much.

 

There's just the straight up opportunity costs. It's quite plausible to me that Nintendo wouldn't sell that many more games if they released on the PC and it's equally plausible that some of those sales would come at the cost of selling consoles. We can look at examples from Sony and Microsoft, but they're imperfect comparisons at best. There aren't any Nintendo games that look to me like they could be another Helldivers 2. The games that might sell best on the PC are probably the Zelda games, the exact games that they're relying on to sell their consoles. Also, it's more important to Nintendo than to MS or Sony that you buy their hardware, because they actually make money on it.

 

I also think there is a lot of brand control and images issues at play. Nintendo has always been very protective of its brand (which I think is demonstrated in this lawsuit), and I imagine they contribute much of their success and longevity to that protection. I also think there's a simplicity to it that they value and want to hold on to. Want to play a Nintendo game? Buy a Nintendo.

 

Besides all this, I think that if Nintendo were to release games on another platform, the PC probably wouldn't be it. They'd probably put games out on mobile first. I know they've actually done some of that, but they haven't really been hits. (I don't count Pokemon Go, because it wasn't a Nintendo game in any way that matters).

[best3444]

4 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I think it's interesting how this conversation has shifted over the years. Not very long ago it wouldn't have even been considered remotely plausible that it would financially benefit Nintendo to release games on the PC, and I don't think the actual merits have changed much.

 

There's just the straight up opportunity costs. It's quite plausible to me that Nintendo wouldn't sell that many more games if they released on the PC and it's equally plausible that some of those sales would come at the cost of selling consoles. We can look at examples from Sony and Microsoft, but they're imperfect comparisons at best. There aren't any Nintendo games that look to me like they could be another Helldivers 2. The games that might sell best on the PC are probably the Zelda games, the exact games that they're relying on to sell their consoles. Also, it's more important to Nintendo than to MS or Sony that you buy their hardware, because they actually make money on it.

 

I also think there is a lot of brand control and images issues at play. Nintendo has always been very protective of its brand (which I think is demonstrated in this lawsuit), and I imagine they contribute much of their success and longevity to that protection. I also think there's a simplicity to it that they value and want to hold on to. Want to play a Nintendo game? Buy a Nintendo.

 

Besides all this, I think that if Nintendo were to release games on another platform, the PC probably wouldn't be it. They'd probably put games out on mobile first. I know they've actually done some of that, but they haven't really been hits. (I don't count Pokemon Go, because it wasn't a Nintendo game in any way that matters).

 

Great post as usual 👌 

[crispy4000]

30 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I think it's interesting how this conversation has shifted over the years. Not very long ago it wouldn't have even been considered remotely plausible that it would financially benefit Nintendo to release games on the PC, and I don't think the actual merits have changed much.

 

There's just the straight up opportunity costs. It's quite plausible to me that Nintendo wouldn't sell that many more games if they released on the PC and it's equally plausible that some of those sales would come at the cost of selling consoles. We can look at examples from Sony and Microsoft, but they're imperfect comparisons at best. There aren't any Nintendo games that look to me like they could be another Helldivers 2. The games that might sell best on the PC are probably the Zelda games, the exact games that they're relying on to sell their consoles. Also, it's more important to Nintendo than to MS or Sony that you buy their hardware, because they actually make money on it.

 

I also think there is a lot of brand control and images issues at play. Nintendo has always been very protective of its brand (which I think is demonstrated in this lawsuit), and I imagine they contribute much of their success and longevity to that protection. I also think there's a simplicity to it that they value and want to hold on to. Want to play a Nintendo game? Buy a Nintendo.

 

Besides all this, I think that if Nintendo were to release games on another platform, the PC probably wouldn't be it. They'd probably put games out on mobile first. I know they've actually done some of that, but they haven't really been hits. (I don't count Pokemon Go, because it wasn't a Nintendo game in any way that matters).

 

I don't think the conversation has fundamentally changed other than Sony and Microsoft doing it.  Otherwise, its the same song and dance that suggested the PSP, the iPhone, etc would spell doom for Nintendo and they should start porting everything.  (and look at how short sighted that ended up being with mobile, they never needed to do it)

 

The reasons for keeping exclusivity have remained same.  Their properties are popular enough to sell their hardware.  When their hardware sells, they keep more royalties, and pay out none.  With conservative game budgets, they have all the opportunity they need to make a killing. 

 

Furthermore, it doesn't fall on their hardware to sell itself.  They'd probably exit that business if they ever went multiplatform.

 

You could make a strong case that the Splatoon series could thrive even more as a multiplatform title.  But Nintendo isn't in the business of making the most they can off individual titles.  They're in the business of making people come to them, where they set the rules, and can best maintain their image as a family friendly destination.  And sell dozens of millions of Mario games regardless.
 

[Keyser_Soze]

Until recently Nintendo had been using multiplayer servers that were running on Windows 98.

 

Nintendo probably doesn't even know what a PC is.

[Biggie]

3 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Until recently Nintendo had been using multiplayer servers that were running on Windows 98.

 

Nintendo probably doesn't even know what a PC is.

I kicked @GameDadGrant ass in Mario Tennis on those servers. 

[Paperclyp]

42 minutes ago, ShreddieMercury said:

Games have always been able to run better and look better on PC.  Again, just because you don't like Nintendo's hardware, or think it should be more powerful, does not entitle you to play their games on different hardware.  People are talking about this issue as if we have some sort of right to access and play any and all games however we choose, which is wild. 

 

While the legality of emulating a video game that you own is already settled, something much more gray like Yuzu, which makes money emulating commercially available software and is directly enabling piracy for the vast majority of users, is not nearly as clear cut.

The problem with this discussion is the reasons and means by which people choose to emulate are quite varied. 
 

While we might not legally have the right to do certain things, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have that right, especially when it comes to software put out by a company who takes every advantage of its consumers and shuts down old means of access. 
 

So if you’re just a fan of law and want it to be withheld for the sake of law and order, I guess i see a world where it’s like “you know Nintendo is well within their rights here guys!” But I hope that’s not where you want things to be. 

[Bacon]

[crispy4000]

9 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

While we might not legally have the right to do certain things, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have that right, especially when it comes to software put out by a company who takes every advantage of its consumers and shuts down old means of access.

 

This is also true.  There's places in the world like Japan where modding closed hardware is illegal in of itself.  We're worse off if that becomes the norm.

[AbsolutSurgen]

29 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I think it's interesting how this conversation has shifted over the years. Not very long ago it wouldn't have even been considered remotely plausible that it would financially benefit Nintendo to release games on the PC, and I don't think the actual merits have changed much.

People have been talking about Nintendo publishing on other platforms for at least a decade.  I don't think this conversation is new.

 

29 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

There's just the straight up opportunity costs. It's quite plausible to me that Nintendo wouldn't sell that many more games if they released on the PC and it's equally plausible that some of those sales would come at the cost of selling consoles. We can look at examples from Sony and Microsoft, but they're imperfect comparisons at best. There aren't any Nintendo games that look to me like they could be another Helldivers 2. The games that might sell best on the PC are probably the Zelda games, the exact games that they're relying on to sell their consoles. Also, it's more important to Nintendo than to MS or Sony that you buy their hardware, because they actually make money on it.

When Nintendo started their console business, most people didn't have access to a computer.

When Nintendo started their handheld business, most kids didn't have access to a computer.

Now, most of us have at least a dozen computers in our house, many that are significantly more sophisticated than a Switch.  (i.e. I have 3 gaming desktops in my house, an Echo Show, several laptops, a Steam Deck, several tablets, several iPhones etc.)

The need for dedicated hardware that only does one task is now considered archaic, particularly for kids who are Nintendo's historically biggest demographic.  My 8-year old daughter is used to playing Roblox on the PC, while her best friend plays with her on her tablet.  This is normal to them.

In order for Nintendo to stay relevant in the future, they will need to adapt to this new reality.

29 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I also think there is a lot of brand control and images issues at play. Nintendo has always been very protective of its brand (which I think is demonstrated in this lawsuit), and I imagine they contribute much of their success and longevity to that protection. I also think there's a simplicity to it that they value and want to hold on to. Want to play a Nintendo game? Buy a Nintendo.

There is certainly a demographic that still buys into that.  Sony and MS seem to no longer believe that this will work anymore.

29 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

Besides all this, I think that if Nintendo were to release games on another platform, the PC probably wouldn't be it. They'd probably put games out on mobile first. I know they've actually done some of that, but they haven't really been hits. (I don't count Pokemon Go, because it wasn't a Nintendo game in any way that matters).

Maybe.  There current software runs much better with a controller -- I think they could monetize their software quite easily on the other platforms that offer a controller.

Mobile games are also overwhelmingly FTP, and I don't think that model fits Nintendo particularly well.

[stepee]

I love Nintendo but Nintendo is in the wrong here. Also a little late to the party. Interesting they aren’t going after ryujinx at the same time. I’m only worried for the precedent it could set for the future of emulation in general. 

[crispy4000]

22 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

When Nintendo started their console business, most people didn't have access to a computer.

When Nintendo started their handheld business, most kids didn't have access to a computer.

Now, most of us have at least a dozen computers in our house, many that are significantly more sophisticated than a Switch.  (i.e. I have 3 gaming desktops in my house, an Echo Show, several laptops, a Steam Deck, several tablets, several iPhones etc.)

The need for dedicated hardware that only does one task is now considered archaic, particularly for kids who are Nintendo's historically biggest demographic.  My 8-year old daughter is used to playing Roblox on the PC, while her best friend plays with her on her tablet.  This is normal to them.

In order for Nintendo to stay relevant in the future, they will need to adapt to this new reality.

There is no looming threat to their business fundamentals from iPhones, tablets and PCs.  They’re on the verge of Switch being the best selling game platform of all time.  That’s evidence enough to dispel the notion that their pitch isn't compelling enough.  It's being propped up by things like Mario movies and theme parks too.
 

We’ll see how the portable PC trend and cloud plays out… that’s what is new this go around.

 

Nintendo may need to do something unique to make their new hardware exciting, but that’s the same challenge they take on every generation.  And probably less of a risk than the Wii U with software divisions combined.

[TwinIon]

9 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

When Nintendo started their console business, most people didn't have access to a computer.

When Nintendo started their handheld business, most kids didn't have access to a computer.

Now, most of us have at least a dozen computers in our house, many that are significantly more sophisticated than a Switch.  (i.e. I have 3 gaming desktops in my house, an Echo Show, several laptops, a Steam Deck, several tablets, several iPhones etc.)

The need for dedicated hardware that only does one task is now considered archaic, particularly for kids who are Nintendo's historically biggest demographic.  My 8-year old daughter is used to playing Roblox on the PC, while her best friend plays with her on her tablet.  This is normal to them.

In order for Nintendo to stay relevant in the future, they will need to adapt to this new reality.

I don't think that single task devices are necessarily archaic or at odds with what modern kids (or their parents) like, and I think the Switch itself is a pretty good counter example of this. The idea that unitaskers are obsolete has been around since the Swiss army knife and the clock radio, but they still sell just fine. It's not as if the Switch launched way back in the day before kids had phones or tablets or Roblox or Minecraft. Yes, kids today are accustomed to having games across platforms, but my nieces were very excited to get a Switch for Christmas last year.

 

 

There has been talk of Nintendo becoming a software first or software only company for decades. I remember when Sega became a software only company people were speculating on how long it would take Nintendo to follow suit. During that time we've also seen Apple go from near bankruptcy to the most valuable company in the world on the back of an integrated hardware and software ecosystem.

 

The bottom line is that Nintendo believes that their future is most secure and profitable when they control both the hardware and the software, and given the success of the Switch and the very likely success of its successor, I think they're probably right.

[Ghost_MH]

5 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

When Nintendo started their console business, most people didn't have access to a computer.

When Nintendo started their handheld business, most kids didn't have access to a computer.

Now, most of us have at least a dozen computers in our house, many that are significantly more sophisticated than a Switch.  (i.e. I have 3 gaming desktops in my house, an Echo Show, several laptops, a Steam Deck, several tablets, several iPhones etc.)

The need for dedicated hardware that only does one task is now considered archaic, particularly for kids who are Nintendo's historically biggest demographic.  My 8-year old daughter is used to playing Roblox on the PC, while her best friend plays with her on her tablet.  This is normal to them.

In order for Nintendo to stay relevant in the future, they will need to adapt to this new reality.

 

I mean, my kids all have tablets and phones. My son has his own gaming PC in his room with a big old 55" 4k TV and a Gamepass subscription. However, still, for some wild reason, my kids still want to play on the Switch. They've logged like 200 hours in Goat Simulator on Switch even though Goat Simulator 3 is right there on Gamepass, installed and looking better than ever.

 

A part of me does wonder if PCs will really be the end all here. Every year I hear about more and more kids that can barely navigate a file explorer because they're so used to Android and iOS/ipadOS on their phones and tablets along with Chrome OS on their laptops at school. I don't know if there's really any evidence that nobody wants console anymore. Pretty sure Nintendo has sold more Switches last year than the entire handheld gaming PC market. Valve's Steam Deck is the best selling of them all and they've pushed like what? 2-3m units since 2022?

[AbsolutSurgen]

13 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

There is no looming threat to their business fundamentals from iPhones, tablets and PCs.  They’re on the verge of Switch being the best selling game platform of all time.  That’s evidence enough to dispel the notion that their pitch isn't compelling enough.  It's being propped up by things like Mario movies and theme parks too.
 

We’ll see how the portable PC trend and cloud plays out… that’s what is new this go around.

 

Nintendo may need to do something unique to make their new hardware exciting, but that’s the same challenge they take on every generation.  And probably less of a risk than the Wii U with software divisions combined.

They have a long history of incredibly successful platforms being followed by terribly performing ones.

7 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

I mean, my kids all have tablets and phones. My son has his own gaming PC in his room with a big old 55" 4k TV and a Gamepass subscription. However, still, for some wild reason, my kids still want to play on the Switch. They've logged like 200 hours in Goat Simulator on Switch even though Goat Simulator 3 is right there on Gamepass, installed and looking better than ever.

 

A part of me does wonder if PCs will really be the end all here. Every year I hear about more and more kids that can barely navigate a file explorer because they're so used to Android and iOS/ipadOS on their phones and tablets along with Chrome OS on their laptops at school. I don't know if there's really any evidence that nobody wants console anymore. Pretty sure Nintendo has sold more Switches last year than the entire handheld gaming PC market. Valve's Steam Deck is the best selling of them all and they've pushed like what? 2-3m units since 2022?

The "handheld gaming PC market" is an awful small subset of the PC gaming market.  I'm not sure that number is relevant, given the large number of form factors.

I wouldn't even say the PC is the ONLY form factor they should target, let alone the small niche this is the "handheld gaming PC".

[crispy4000]

13 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

They have a long history of incredibly successful platforms being followed by terribly performing ones.

None of which happened for the factors you cited.  They’re their own worst enemy at times.

 

As I said, with software divisions combined, their at less risk today or a bomb than in the past.

[GameDadGrant]

Of course Nintendo is suing. I mean...what did anyone think was going to happen?

 

It'll be interesting to see the results of this, especially if it goes to court. I don't really follow Xbox or Playstation news, but if emulators were available on PC to play those games for free...would Microsoft and/or Sony just let it slide?

 

I know back in the day Sony didn't take kindly to bleem! which was disappointing. (though I was still able to snag the discs to allow me to play Gran Turismo 2, Tekken 3 and Metal Gear Solid on my Dreamcast. Huzzah!) 

[AbsolutSurgen]

29 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

None of which happened for the factors you cited.  They’re their own worst enemy at times.

 

As I said, with software divisions combined, their at less risk today or a bomb than in the past.

They have failed for a variety of reasons.

Their software divisions would have no risk of losing sales (like they have in the past) if they supported more platforms, and have the potential of significantly increasing sales.

[Mr.Vic20]

I wonder how many years it will be until I can simply instruct an AI to create a software executable for emulation of a given platform. 

[Paperclyp]

1 hour ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

I wonder how many years it will be until I can simply instruct an AI to create a software executable for emulation of a given platform. 

I bet it can tell you almost step by step how to do it with the exception of getting you the BIOS. I wonder if the BIOS will be the hang up for that as well. 

[Mr.Vic20]

1 minute ago, Paperclyp said:

I bet it can tell you almost step by step how to do it with the exception of getting you the BIOS. I wonder if the BIOS will be the hang up for that as well. 

I'm guessing you are correct, its  a shame those tend to wonder into the wild so frequently...