Nintendo is going after the development team of an emulator. A legal case was filed by Nintendo yesterday, alleging that the Nintendo Switch emulator, Yuzu, has caused damages to the company by allowing for its games to be played illegally before release. The suit also claims that the company behind the emulator, Tropic Haze LLC, makes a profit by facilitating piracy, noting that during the leak of The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, Yuzu's Patreon saw a large increase in users. Nintendo's legal team makes a case that Tropic Haze profits from and popularizes video game piracy.

NEW: Nintendo is suing the creators of popular Switch emulator Yuzu, saying their tech illegally circumvents Nintendo's software encryption and facilitates piracy.
Seeks damages for alleged violations and a shutdown of the emulator. pic.twitter.com/SGZVI6Cs0x

— Stephen Totilo (@stephentotilo) February 27, 2024

In the legal document, Nintendo refers to an emulator as, "a piece of software that allows users to unlawfully play pirated video games". They also assert that the Yuzu team is aware of the emulator's use in the context of piracy, and do not try to hide that aspect. In addition, Nintendo's legal team states that extracting your own keys from a Nintendo Switch console--a requirement to run any Nintendo Switch emulator--is illegal.

Source

 

[Sir Tortoise]

The point was they used Yuzu to repaint their own failure. Those 1 million downloads they pulled from their asses most definitely were not played on Yuzu but on their own failure hardware they continued to release. The game was NOT even playable on this emulator when it got leaked which adds to their BS.

"Nobody uses Yuzu for piracy" really isn't a strong defence either.

 

[Revie]

So you're arguing in favor of incompetence in their QA department being the culprit now, that's not much better and still puts Nintendo on the back foot from a legal perspective. Moreover, if this was their first console to be exploited shortly after release, you could call it a coincidence and I'd probably agree with you. We all know that isn't the case, though. Nintendo intentionally goes cheap on the hardware side, and half-asses many aspects of their software relative to the competition. The courts aren't meant to be used as a pair of steel underwear to prevent Ninty's own bad decisions from coming back around to bite them in the ass.

The confidence with the clear lack of knowledge of what you're talking about is astounding to me.
Blaming a Nintendo QA department for a previously unknown hardware CVE which allows arbitrary code execution due to a BO exploit blows my mind.

I get that "nintendo bad grrrr" but that doesn't mean you should pretend you know and understand things about a field you clearly lack knowledge of, especially not with such an attitude.

Do you truly believe that a regular QA team has anything to do with vulnerabilities/0days found in hardware?

It took years with plenty of security researchers digging into this chip before this was found by anyone, and you're acting like a QA team should've just found it

 

[Sir Tortoise]

So you're arguing in favor of incompetence in their QA department being the culprit now, that's not much better and still puts Nintendo on the back foot from a legal perspective. Moreover, if this was their first console to be exploited shortly after release, you could call it a coincidence and I'd probably agree with you. We all know that isn't the case, though. Nintendo intentionally goes cheap on the hardware side, and half-asses many aspects of their software relative to the competition. The courts aren't meant to be used as a pair of steel underwear to prevent Ninty's own bad decisions from coming back around to bite them in the ass.

Why would NVidia be outsourcing their QA to Nintendo?

 

[Xzi]

It took years with plenty of security researchers digging into this chip before this was found by anyone, and you're acting like a QA team should've just found it

The chip was already six years old in 2017 and had been used in other devices before Switch. You can blame Nintendo or you can blame Nvidia, but you sure as hell cannot blame the Yuzu devs. Again, by the letter of the law, Nintendo must demonstrate that EFFECTIVE security measures were bypassed, but it will be a lot easier for the defense to demonstrate how INEFFECTIVE they actually were. Just one of many angles Yuzu could come at this in the process of building a strong case.

"Nobody uses Yuzu for piracy" really isn't a strong defence either.

Yuzu itself contains no Nintendo-licensed code. Creating backups of your own bios and cartridges is legal. Therefore Yuzu has a valid and legal use case. Potential illegal uses are irrelevant, as every piece of hardware and software has that same potential.

 

[Citizen_404]

Good article over at Ars Technica, they basically interviewed other emulator dev's to ask them their take on things.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024...s-defiance-in-wake-of-nintendos-yuzu-lawsuit/

 

[Sir Tortoise]

The chip was already six years old in 2017 and had been used in other devices before Switch. You can blame Nintendo or you can blame Nvidia, but you sure as hell cannot blame the Yuzu devs. Again, by the letter of the law, Nintendo must demonstrate that EFFECTIVE security measures were bypassed, but it will be a lot easier for the defense to demonstrate how INEFFECTIVE they actually were. Just one of many angles Yuzu could come at this in the process of building a strong case.

Sounds like a catch-22. Nintendo "must" demonstrate that an effective security measure was bypassed, but if it was bypassed, it's not effective...very convenient if that is the case but I'm not convinced it is. The Ars Technica article linked by the guy above me goes into this in terms of encryption, like how old consoles simply didn't have it. So no circumvention. I don't believe there's a legal exemption akin to "bypassing encryption is okay if it was easy".

Yuzu itself contains no Nintendo-licensed code. Creating backups of your own bios and cartridges is legal. Therefore Yuzu has a valid and legal use case. Potential illegal uses are irrelevant, as every piece of hardware and software has that same potential.

Okay, so we've finally arrived at the actual argument. In general I would agree with this, but Nintendo seem to think that Yuzu has created an opportunity to challenge it. By selling the emulator and openly supporting and advertising its use for piracy, they could successfully argue that it is no longer a potential use, but an intended and supported one.

Like, to use an extreme example, I don't think I'd be able to get away with selling 99% complete bombs for educational purposes just because of the "potential" that someone manages to steal a detonator - especially if I also provide information on where to find them.

 

[Xzi]

Sounds like a catch-22. Nintendo "must" demonstrate that an effective security measure was bypassed, but if it was bypassed, it's not effective...very convenient if that is the case but I'm not convinced it is.

Its effectiveness could be demonstrated if it took years of effort and/or a complex coding solution to bypass. Instead, all it took was bending a paperclip. Much in the same way that 3DS' security was bypassed with a fridge magnet. Nintendo is at fault for allowing these glaring security flaws to be shipped with the final consumer product.

Okay, so we've finally arrived at the actual argument. In general I would agree with this, but Nintendo seem to think that Yuzu has created an opportunity to challenge it. By selling the emulator and openly supporting and advertising its use for piracy, they could successfully argue that it is no longer a potential use, but an intended and supported one.

Nintendo's case relies almost wholly on statements the Yuzu devs have made rather than actions they've taken. Admittedly they have been loud-mouthed when it comes to certain topics which they should've stayed silent about instead, so that's an additional hurdle the defense will have to overcome.

 

[Revie]

The chip was already six years old in 2017 and had been used in other devices before Switch. You can blame Nintendo or you can blame Nvidia, but you sure as hell cannot blame the Yuzu devs. Again, by the letter of the law, Nintendo must demonstrate that EFFECTIVE security measures were bypassed, but it will be a lot easier for the defense to demonstrate how INEFFECTIVE they actually were. Just one of many angles Yuzu could come at this in the process of building a strong case.


Yuzu itself contains no Nintendo-licensed code. Creating backups of your own bios and cartridges is legal. Therefore Yuzu has a valid and legal use case. Potential illegal uses are irrelevant, as every piece of hardware and software has that same potential.

Just stop talking about how vulnerabilities and security works in your eyes, this just hurts to read.

 

[kevin corms]

The point was they used Yuzu to repaint their own failure. Those 1 million downloads they pulled from their asses most definitely were not played on Yuzu but on their own failure hardware they continued to release. The game was NOT even playable on this emulator when it got leaked which adds to their BS.

The craziest part is that this game sold over 20 million copies already.

 

[Xzi]

Just stop talking about how vulnerabilities and security works in your eyes, this just hurts to read.

I'm not talking about them from my perspective, I'm talking about them from the perspective of presenting evidence to mostly tech-illiterate jurors. Nintendo is hoping to get a biased jury in their favor, but such a jury could also be easy to sway in the defense's favor if they keep their arguments simple enough.

 

[kevin corms]

The chip was already six years old in 2017 and had been used in other devices before Switch. You can blame Nintendo or you can blame Nvidia, but you sure as hell cannot blame the Yuzu devs. Again, by the letter of the law, Nintendo must demonstrate that EFFECTIVE security measures were bypassed, but it will be a lot easier for the defense to demonstrate how INEFFECTIVE they actually were. Just one of many angles Yuzu could come at this in the process of building a strong case.


Yuzu itself contains no Nintendo-licensed code. Creating backups of your own bios and cartridges is legal. Therefore Yuzu has a valid and legal use case. Potential illegal uses are irrelevant, as every piece of hardware and software has that same potential.

You know whats funny. People online rage about the switch being too slow and low specced, but the nvida shield uses the same soc, and people act as if its faster than anything ever made.

 

[Xzi]

You know whats funny. People online rage about the switch being too slow and low specced, but the nvida shield uses the same soc, and people act as if its faster than anything ever made.

Shield TV was widely understood to be at least a generation behind PS4/XB1 when it released. Game streaming was a huge selling point for it rather than native support, and It also doesn't limit clock speed in the same way Switch does.

Effective security/anti-piracy measures also don't necessarily require a lot of horsepower.

 

[Kioku]

You know whats funny. People online rage about the switch being too slow and low specced, but the nvida shield uses the same soc, and people act as if its faster than anything ever made.

Not sure about that... But let's not overlook the fact that the Shield can be used as a full Android device OOB and have access to more media sources without the need for modifications. They're not the same.

 

[kevin corms]

Not sure about that... But let's not overlook the fact that the Shield can be used as a full Android device OOB and have access to more media sources without the need for modifications. They're not the same.

Not sure what that strawman argument has to do with anything.

 

[Hassal]

The craziest part is that this game sold over 20 million copies already.

That not even the craziest part, they sold that many in November which is 4 months ago. They will likely be required to show their current sale figures to jury. I'm going to put a guesstimate around 28m. This figure will not fly over very easy.

To put things into perspective, PS4 best sellers took a span of multiple years (4-5 years) to reach where they are with occasional sales and discounts but these mofos hit that milestone in the first 6 months on full $70 undiscounted title. No way the jury would not start having eye twitches.

 

[Xzi]

Not sure what that strawman argument has to do with anything. They are still charging $200 for it, the same price as the switch lite which has a screen.

Funny enough, it's $200 for the Shield TV "Pro" revision with a "Tegra X1+" chipset. Makes it all the more laughable that we never got a Switch Pro.

 

[Kioku]

Not sure what that strawman argument has to do with anything.

Apples to oranges. The Switch, as a dedicated gaming device, was way underpowered. Nobody looked at the Shield in that light. Same SOC, sure. However, the Shield was not marketed like the Switch was. Your point was that the Shield was praised and seen as more powerful, but that's as an Android media box first, game streaming second. The Switch, Nintendo's first class gaming tablet, was criticized as a gaming system. If the Shield was seen in that light, chances are it would have met the same fate as the OUYA.

 

[Tomtani1]

Because they made the case that Yuzu was the main cause of piracy not the incompetency of their own ecosystem when their hardware itself can be hacked to play these.

If these ever succeed with their bullshittery, AMS will be their next target on the list because in their definition it facilitates piracy as well!

We can't lose AMS. If Nintendo shuts down Yuzu, they will go after AMS.

 

[AdenTheThird]

We can't lose AMS. If Nintendo shuts down Yuzu, they will go after AMS.

Assumption fallacy. Absolutely not true.
Nintendo's suits are extremely situational and case-by-case. Universal precedents in a field as volatile as gaming/tech development serve no purpose as they're quickly rendered irrelevant due to the ever-changing technology.
Yuzu has demonstrated, allegedly, a clear-cut direct benefit off of piracy. They're also the biggest fish in the emulation scene right now (therefore posing the biggest threat to Nintendo), and they screwed up with the blog posts by basically admitting to piracy.
Although Nintendo has a reputation of suing anyone who even steps a little out of line, the reality is that Nintendo plays their cards very carefully. They're hoping to set a precedent here, not plug every hole in the Switch modding scene until everyone goes home.
They don't have any incentive (or really, the time) to do something like that anyway.

 

[Kioku]

Funny enough, it's $200 for the Shield TV "Pro" revision with a "Tegra X1+" chipset. Makes it all the more laughable that we never got a Switch Pro.

This never made sense to me.. I remember the rumor mill churning away with the X1+ Switch being "announced" and "revealed" every 4-6 months. Got old real quick. Still, a mid-life spec bump would have been perfect.