• Contramuffin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    So, I agree with your general points, but I think part of the reason Nintendo is so harsh towards Yuzu is because, as far as I’m aware, Yuzu does actually contain proprietary code from Nintendo.

    My understanding is that the Yuzu team used a Switch development kit instead of reverse engineering the Switch as they had claimed, so the entire code is essentially tainted because it’s unclear which parts came from the development kit and which parts came from true reverse engineering

    • Adanisi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      2 months ago

      Source?

      Not disbelieving, but I’ve never heard this before.

      • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 months ago

        I tried looking for it, but all my searches are flooded with articles about this current takedown wave. I did find a forum post talking about it, though, so I know I’m not crazy.

        I might try searching again later, in which case I’ll edit this comment.

        Also, I know this isn’t really relevant to the question, but the Yuzu team was doing some really shady stuff, even ignoring the development kit usage. For instance, they were collecting telemetry data from all of their users and were using illegally obtained roms to optimize Yuzu, to the point where the Yuzu team was able to get games to work before the game’s official release

        • Adanisi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          They did do shady stuff but I hate that the “TOTK worked on the Switch perfectly on release day” is thrown around as an argument. It’s an emulator, emulating the switch hardware, if it does it’s job well of course it’ll do that.

          I know that they used leaked builds but that just annoys me.

          And obligatory, fuck Nintendo.

          • Kayn@dormi.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’ve seen hearsay that there have been Yuzu patches specifically to aid compatibility with TOTK before it was officially out, which would have greatly supported the “mainly/primarily used for piracy” argument in court.

          • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I would agree with you, but there was apparently evidence that specific patches were made that allowed TOTK to work. And then if you take a look at the link, there were screenshots of the Nintendo documents to suggest that TOTK apparently was not the Yuzu team’s first rodeo when it came to patching for pre-release games

            • Natanael@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              It doesn’t matter if there’s patches to make it work specifically, if they don’t contain Nintendo’s code. At most they could accuse whoever contributed the patch with piracy / breach of NDA or similar for having downloaded the ROM prior to release (couldn’t have purchased it) but that doesn’t impact the emulator itself

        • phx@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          IIRC they also had some stuff going around about how Tears of the Kingdom ran better on the emulator than the actual Switch.

          Pretty sure that was the point at which Nintendo decided to unleash the dogs on them

        • Adanisi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          That’s not “proprietary code”, those are keys. And they actually didn’t include keys, Yuzu did require you to supply a key, however a lot of them were then derived from the key supplied.

          And there is no other way to do emulation and a whole host of other things if you can’t use their keys. Make no mistake, Nintendo wishes it could make using the keys at all illegal.

          • atrielienz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Here’s the thing. The creators of Yuzu folded which is a win as far as Nintendo is concerned and a loss for everyone else who uses the yuzu emulators. Your semantics about the situation aren’t helping. All I did was supply a link to a news story that was already available on Lemmy on literally the technology community. This has already been hashed out.

            • Adanisi
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              They didn’t win, they did an out-of-court settlement.

            • Natanael@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Something something legal precedence. This hasn’t gone through court yet, has it?

              • atrielienz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                And if Nintendo has its way (which they did this go round) they won’t have to. They got what they wanted and they’re not having to spend ridiculous amounts of money (that there’s basically no way to re-coup) on litigation. They sued a guy who can never pay them back what the court says he owes them. I doubt they want to go through that again. Easier to just for arbitrate the proceedings.