this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
330 points (97.4% liked)

Games

16806 readers
1097 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] simple@lemm.ee 169 points 8 months ago (2 children)

TL;DR:

  • They will avoid monetization

  • They will avoid providing step-by-step guides to play games on the emulator (I assume they mean extracting games from the console using hacked tools)

  • They will avoid providing keys or circumvent DRM, you'll have to get everything from your Switch

  • The devs are upset at how much attention they're getting which is kind of ironic considering the article.

"We wanted to fly under the radar at the start [...] It's already much more widespread than ideal for the current stage of development."

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 80 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Which is how emulation worked the last 20 years. It flew under the radar because they weren't doing anything explicitly illegal, while also avoiding getting paid or having anything point at you.

Yuzu flew too close to the sun. I'm sorry, but they did. They very brazenly operated like they were challenging Nintendo. They werent just emulating games from last Gen but modern Gen games that just came out. Like it or not, that is taking money from Nintendo and it was obvious they were going to get the hammer.

For me I'm mad at them. Mad because their cavalier attitude made all emulation look the same as piracy, which it isn't. There's a clear dividing line and Yuzu came very close to labeling all emulation as piracy.

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee 23 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Emulator devs deserve compensation, copyright laws are bullshit.

Nintendo lost some negligible (to them) amount of money, and in return ruined some peoples lives, and disappointed their fans.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Emulator devs deserve compensation, copyright laws are bullshit.

There's literally nothing that legally bars emulator devs from being paid, or even releasing their emulator as a commercial product outright. Except being sued and the cost of fighting that suit burying them financially.

Bleem! eventually won, and it was a commercial emulator for a then-current gen console. The cost of winning that fight put them out of business.

Not providing encryption keys/BIOS and not directly assisting with piracy are the key things to be legally in the right. Making money on it just makes you a more likely target, even if you're legally entirely in the right.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 6 points 8 months ago

Exactly. They were brazen with what they were doing, making it easy to pirate games. While I want to support devs, by accepting money and assisting piracy they painted a giant target on themselves. Most emulator devs know what they're doing and stay out of the way, yuzu did the opposite.

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There’s literally nothing that legally bars emulator devs from being paid, or even releasing their emulator as a commercial product outright. Except being sued and the cost of fighting that suit burying them financially.

Bleem! eventually won, and it was a commercial emulator for a then-current gen console. The cost of winning that fight put them out of business.

So basically large corporations get to decide if unaffiliated developers can earn money. Seems reasonable.

I don't see how your comment contradicts mine at all.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

More like anyone can sue anyone for anything, even if they have no chance of winning and sometimes corps do exactly that to force a settlement so you'll do what they want even if you did nothing wrong.

Any action you take happens only because billionaires and massive corps don't consider you worth suing over it. Even if there is nothing resembling legitimate grounds to do so because they can tie you up in court until you are bankrupt.

I always like pointing out the fatal mistake of Gawker - they outed that a billionaire was gay while he was in a country where being gay was punishable by death. He then spent the next several years offering to fund any lawsuit that had any chance of success against them in revenge, and eventually one stuck.

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Anyone can sue for any reason + large corporations can force a settlement = large corporations can decide if unaffiliated devs earn money for any reason.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 8 months ago

large corporations can decide if unaffiliated devs earn money for any reason.

Large corporations and sufficiently rich individuals can decide if you do anything for any reason. Bringing up unaffiliated devs earning money is just narrowing the scope beyond what it actually is. Again, everything you do happens only because the exceedingly wealthy and massive corps don't consider you worth suing over it.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 13 points 8 months ago

I got freaking crucified for this sentiment the day the news dropped.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They will avoid monetization

Funny: "suyu also needs to be a product. We need to find ways to monetise the project"

https://gitlab.com/suyu-emu/suyu/-/wikis/Contributor-License-Agreement-Policy

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Could it be that they just copied the one in yuzus repo and hard-replaced the names? Three quote makes reference to 2019, which is very weird for a 2024 project, but would be more normal for the timeframe of yuzu

However, in order to compete with modern emulators in 2019 and beyond, suyu also needs to be a product.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Could it be that they just copied the one in yuzus repo and hard-replaced the names?

Yes, it's pretty much the same text as before but contributor zqpvr also adjusted the spelling of "monetized" to "monetised", so it's definitively not like the document flew under the radar and it was just part of a bulk import with a search and replace of yuzu to suyu: https://gitlab.com/suyu-emu/suyu/-/wikis/Contributor-License-Agreement-Policy/diff?version_id=f4ca3a5422d153139ccc66fc4d86ccb844d937e7

So for now "2) more easily monetise the project [...] 3) restrict the access of non-core parts of the suyu source code" is the policy of suyu until revoked.

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Will have to see how it goes, might be some OCD as another typo was also there.

I hope they don't get Nintendo any ammo to go after them.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Will have to see how it goes, might be some OCD as another typo was also there.

Deleting the entire thing would have gotten rid of the typo as well. At this point, that's just stupidity.

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

Cloning the repo of yuzu right at Nintendo tried to make an example of them might be considered...stupid.

Don't get me wrong, I hope the best for them. But I would not risk my future against Nintendo.