Not sure how I feel about the developers making 30k a month in patreon donations for writing an emulator for a current gen console. Nintendo might have a point here.
Edit: that said, I did pay 5 dollars (or something like that) for redream, which is a Dreamcast emulator. But in my mind at least, this doesn't deny the developers of the games I play on it the money they would get from a sale. Because it is a dead platform.
I know for a fact that when I pirated Dreamcast games back in the day, I would have paid for at for some of them at least. I don't feel great about that. It was one of my favourite consoles and I probably aided in it's untimely demise.
Personally I really don't get this outrage over emulators.
A huge chunk of the population can't afford Nintendo Switch or its expensively priced licenses. They turn to a zero-cost grey-market online. Nintendo wants to turn those people into paying customers?
Somebody who owns a Switch and buys games aren't going to stop paying so who is Nintendo really trying to deny?
How do we decide who gets to listen to a song and who doesn't on the internet where information constantly tries to reach homeostasis by becoming free and widely available? Capital?
I'm not sure I understand your point. As I understand it, Nintendo makes: 1) hardware, and 2) games. They are attempting to tie together the game and the hardware, so that if you buy the game, you also have to buy the hardware, in order to force people to buy more hardware, and not just buy the game and go to a competitor for the hardware.
But as often happens, a competitor came along - by producing an interoperable emulator which allows people to buy the game, but play it on different hardware.
I can understand why Nintendo would prefer not to have competitors, and how they might like to use their market power in the games space to crush competitors (FLOSS or not) in the hardware / emulation space, but they should expect to have to compete - that hardly seems like 'having a point'.
Apparently, under US law, an owner of a copy of software is allowed to make a copy if it is an essential step to running it on particular hardware, and that copy is not used for any other purpose: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117. So someone who purchases a copy of the game is allowed to copy it again for the purpose of emulating it.
And apparently, while the US has laws against manufacturing and making available circumvention technology, decrypting for the purpose of interoperability is explicitly exempted: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 17 USC s1201 (f)(3).
So using that law as a cudgel to prevent competitors from producing a compatible product is not really what the law was intended for, and I'd say this is bullying and abuse of process against a competitor.
Legally it doesn't matter - in fact you could say the courts practically endorse making emulators to compete with existing platforms, given quotes like this from Sony v. Connectix (where Sony attempted to sue Connectix for making a commercial (sold on shelves) emulator for the PlayStation which was then being actively commercialized):
> The Virtual Game Station is a legitimate competitor in the market for platforms on which Sony and Sony-licensed games can be played. See Sega, 977 F.2d at 1522-23. For this reason, some economic loss by Sony as a result of this competition does not compel a finding of no fair use. Sony understandably seeks control over the market for devices that play games Sony produces or licenses. The copyright law, however, does not confer such a monopoly. See id. at 1523-24 ("[A]n attempt to monopolize the market by making it impossible for others to compete runs counter to the statutory purpose of promoting creative expression and cannot constitute a strong equitable basis for resisting the invocation of the fair use doctrine.").
- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling in Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp.
would it change if they were making less money? or emulating a previous generation? Or if that 30k was split between 100 devs and is basically a small tip per month instead of a very comfortable wage for a single dev?
It would. If they weren't enabling current-gen piracy and profiting off of actively exploited IPs, they wouldn't get a tenth of that income, maybe not a hundredth, looking at what other projects earn. Plenty of top emulator developers spend their nights and weekends on hardware research and low-level programming and get zilch for their efforts. I could name several who deserve support more than Yuzu, but they don't withhold updates behind Patreon subscriptions, focus on new platforms to hijack market share, or self-promote by listing all the games you can pirate on their programs - in other words they're passion projects, not money-making enterprises, so far from making thousands a month, most of those projects are lucky to get a fiver here and there from an appreciative user. Anyone familiar with the scene can tell you that Yuzu makes that money because they actively seek it. The fact that it's a highly profitable product focused on enabling illegal activity and not a passion project is what's uncomfortable.
Edit: that said, I did pay 5 dollars (or something like that) for redream, which is a Dreamcast emulator. But in my mind at least, this doesn't deny the developers of the games I play on it the money they would get from a sale. Because it is a dead platform.
I know for a fact that when I pirated Dreamcast games back in the day, I would have paid for at for some of them at least. I don't feel great about that. It was one of my favourite consoles and I probably aided in it's untimely demise.