Update 22/03/24, 10:56 UTC - While GitLab have not responded to my email, the team behind suyu are continuing on. As one of their team posted in Discord, which seems invites are open for again:
So they will be sticking to their own hosted Git now.
Original article below:
Well, that didn't last long did it. After a first release, GitLab have already pulled down the Nintendo Switch emulator suyu, due to a DMCA hit as a result of it being forked from yuzu which Nintendo shut down.
Even though the suyu team were doing it as a non-profit, with no way to donate, it seems this didn't matter because it's based on a project that was already taken down. The GitLab page now just gives a 404 error — it's just gone. The suyu Discord is also no longer accepting invites, probably due to an influx of people wondering what's going on.
A few people managed to grab the notice that was sent to the suyu team like Mr. Sujano on X:
So it looks like this may very well be the end of the road for suyu on GitLab. At least for emulation fans, Ryujinx is still going. Since yuzu was open source though, Nintendo will have plenty of trouble fully erasing it, since even a very quick Google search showed up plenty of it still existing on the web across various places.
I've reached out to GitLab for more info…will update if they reply.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
slaapliedje Mar 22
Quoting: NozoSince Yuzu is under the GPLv3 license, someone should contact the FSF to keep an eye on Nintendo and begin tracking any potential GPL violation perpetuated by the company, Nintendo may want to see how far they can stretch this.How funny would it be if the next Nintendo console actually uses Yuzu for backward compatibility... and then the FSF sues them for not releasing the code changes...
6 Likes, Who?
Quoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: NozoSince Yuzu is under the GPLv3 license, someone should contact the FSF to keep an eye on Nintendo and begin tracking any potential GPL violation perpetuated by the company, Nintendo may want to see how far they can stretch this.How funny would it be if the next Nintendo console actually uses Yuzu for backward compatibility... and then the FSF sues them for not releasing the code changes...
I was thinking the same thing since they brought something about not being sure if Switch 2 was going to be backwards compatible and I'd love it if FSF did come after them for it
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: ToddLGood thing I've rejected anything they've done for over a decade and counting and I'm glad that there are other games out there that interest me more than whatever they output.Shameless plug for "Nintendo-style gaming, without Nintendo!", because there are plenty more fish in the sea.
Quoting: slaapliedjeHow funny would it be if the next Nintendo console actually uses Yuzu for backward compatibility... and then the FSF sues them for not releasing the code changes...
Quoting: ToddLI was thinking the same thing since they brought something about not being sure if Switch 2 was going to be backwards compatible and I'd love it if FSF did come after them for itNot this time, fellas - all current signs point to it using an updated chipset in the same family as the current hardware.
5 Likes, Who?
slaapliedje Mar 22
Quoting: PenglingI'd probably rather get a Legion GO if they sold a non-windows version, than I would another Nintendo console (my switch basically collects dust).Quoting: ToddLGood thing I've rejected anything they've done for over a decade and counting and I'm glad that there are other games out there that interest me more than whatever they output.Shameless plug for "Nintendo-style gaming, without Nintendo!", because there are plenty more fish in the sea.
Quoting: slaapliedjeHow funny would it be if the next Nintendo console actually uses Yuzu for backward compatibility... and then the FSF sues them for not releasing the code changes...Quoting: ToddLI was thinking the same thing since they brought something about not being sure if Switch 2 was going to be backwards compatible and I'd love it if FSF did come after them for itNot this time, fellas - all current signs point to it using an updated chipset in the same family as the current hardware.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: slaapliedjeIf Tropic Haze gave up the rights to Yuzu and its source code to Nintendo, Nintendo can relicense it to a proprietary license since the Yuzu project had a CLA, but that would not be retroactive.Quoting: NozoSince Yuzu is under the GPLv3 license, someone should contact the FSF to keep an eye on Nintendo and begin tracking any potential GPL violation perpetuated by the company, Nintendo may want to see how far they can stretch this.How funny would it be if the next Nintendo console actually uses Yuzu for backward compatibility... and then the FSF sues them for not releasing the code changes...
But if Nintendo starts using community contributions licensed under the GPL they could get into serious trouble.
However, the tracking of potentail GPL violations would not only be for Yuzu but in general, although Nintendo has respected open source licenses, it is possible that they have violated some at some point in their history, and currently with such an aggressive stance they are more prone to make mistakes. And since there are not yet many precedents set around copyleft licenses, winning such a case would be a great victory for the free software and open source movements.
Last edited by Nozo on 22 March 2024 at 5:49 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Purple Library Guy[
And there is an answer to the question. The answer is "No, businesses should not have that right. If I buy something, I should be able to do anything I want with it that isn't illegal for real reasons unconnected with that business' ability to exploit me." In fact, the whole thing where when you buy software you are claimed to have "licensed" it and have to click on a EULA is bullshit from start to finish. I don't sign a EULA when I buy a TV, even though it probably has software in it.
Hypothetically speaking what do you think about a creator, indie developer etc.. that wants to place their game on a Switch, NDS, 3DS or Wii-U because they want for it to be played in a specific way (locked to that hardware) because its part of the experience and creative vision they wanted to share because all of the unique hardware mentioned (mostly.. excluding the switch) compared with other generic platforms like PC.
Forgetting the hardware vendor for a moment (sony, microsoft, nintendo, valve etc..) Do you think the seller has a right to keep their creative vision locked into a specific platform because that is both
a.) where they expected to sell it
and
b.) how they wished it to be played ?
Or does the creator, artist developer have no right to expect this ?
Although companies are chasing their bottom line, is there a possibility they are protecting their platform retailers by making it legally difficult to copy/pirate emulate their games because the developer themselves actively wanted to only sell on one platform ? (yes we can be cynical here but even so)
of course they could release on PC, they could also spend more limited development money porting to other consoles.. everything that's available in fact including android. But that's not always possible.
Devils advocate here ofc. im a Linux user after all and don't support DRM.
That said i don't support total software / hardware anarchy either i do think there is a right of the seller to choose how their content is delivered even if just for the simple facts of cross platform development costs. I may not like it though but i do support their freedom to choose.
i know this isn't strictly on topic. but i value your input
Last edited by Lofty on 22 March 2024 at 5:51 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
[quote=Lofty]
No, because it goes against antitrust laws, since it is creating a de facto monopoly within a platform where the hardware vendor has an unfair advantage against any potential competitor, that is why Apple lost, and if another relevant company starts to complain and sue the vendors of traditional video game consoles can use that case as a precedent and/or to support their arguments.
Sony and Nintendo fiercely protect that because there are much greater dangers than what piracy can hypothethically cause, and these dangers are called third-party storefronts with better conditions for both developers and users, including lower commission fees, and this is precisely because that It is legitimate competition. Also keep in mind that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft make their profits from all games and apps sold in their respective stores. This is nothing new, any company is going to protect its monopoly, and obviously that's something they have no right to.
EULAs are still contracts, and not everything said in a EULA can be enforced, and contracts that involve illegal activities are void. Certainly private monopolies are one of them.
Last edited by Nozo on 22 March 2024 at 6:36 pm UTC
Quoting: Purple Library Guy[
Hypothetically speaking what do you think about a creator, indie developer etc.. that wants to place their game on a Switch, NDS, 3DS or Wii-U because they want for it to be played in a specific way (locked to that hardware) because its part of the experience and creative vision they wanted to share because all of the unique hardware mentioned (mostly.. excluding the switch) compared with other generic platforms like PC.
Forgetting the hardware vendor for a moment (sony, microsoft, nintendo, valve etc..) Do you think the seller has a right to keep their creative vision locked into a specific platform because that is both
a.) where they expected to sell it
and
b.) how they wished it to be played ?
Or does the creator, artist developer have no right to expect this ?
No, because it goes against antitrust laws, since it is creating a de facto monopoly within a platform where the hardware vendor has an unfair advantage against any potential competitor, that is why Apple lost, and if another relevant company starts to complain and sue the vendors of traditional video game consoles can use that case as a precedent and/or to support their arguments.
Sony and Nintendo fiercely protect that because there are much greater dangers than what piracy can hypothethically cause, and these dangers are called third-party storefronts with better conditions for both developers and users, including lower commission fees, and this is precisely because that It is legitimate competition. Also keep in mind that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft make their profits from all games and apps sold in their respective stores. This is nothing new, any company is going to protect its monopoly, and obviously that's something they have no right to.
EULAs are still contracts, and not everything said in a EULA can be enforced, and contracts that involve illegal activities are void. Certainly private monopolies are one of them.
Last edited by Nozo on 22 March 2024 at 6:36 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: LoftyNot that i ever want to side with a giant mega corporation but i can kind of understand the perspective on switch emulation, i mean people are emulating games that are practically day one release on emulators, sometimes games that have been leaked. And there was a whole highly visible monetary aspect to it too.Emulation is meant for game preservation and nostalgia(edit* i stand corrected.. not exclusively)It's not very nostalgic emulating a current gen game on non supported hardware andit's not a game that needs preserving whilst its still on immediate sale.
The whole name of this project is obviously a troll towards Nintendo too so their reaction was to be expected.
Emulation will continue though. one way or another, which is great.
Yeah I certainly get that sentiment, I've seen some people say they buy these games even though they don't own a switch just to download them off the Internet. The vast majority obviously don't but I commend the people who do
I've always felt conflicted myself, I've had a switch for years and loved that it was small enough to be a little companion for my pc, fits nicely on a desk, I love platformer and switch has some great 1st party titles in that regard
On the other foot, I love emulation, nintendo have shut down entire rom sites before which denied people not just their own software, but other software like Japenese to English translated rpg games, or random Taiwan mega drive games that I love to collect
They even go as far to say people aren't allowed to dump their own cartridges which depending on region depends on legality but in Japan AFAIK its illegal to dump your own games and thats how Nintendo wants it :(
Hell, my main interest in things like yuzu is being able to play the Virtua Racing re-release that for some stupid reason is switch exclusive, and it forces me to use sideway joycon when playing splitscreen, I much rather get a bunch of xbox controllers out
Last edited by Doktor-Mandrake on 22 March 2024 at 6:38 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
On a other side note
I really hope this doesn't have a negative impact for switch users with Nintendos next console
98% of my switch library is all physical media, I've always gone out my way to only buy physical games with the entire game on them.
Denuvo works on switch and I feel like they might push hard putting drm on their software in the future. This is disappointing for me as its less likely I'll be willing to put down 60 quid of my hard earned money on games that will lock me out without Internet.
I really hope this doesn't have a negative impact for switch users with Nintendos next console
98% of my switch library is all physical media, I've always gone out my way to only buy physical games with the entire game on them.
Denuvo works on switch and I feel like they might push hard putting drm on their software in the future. This is disappointing for me as its less likely I'll be willing to put down 60 quid of my hard earned money on games that will lock me out without Internet.
1 Likes, Who?
Philadelphus Mar 22
Quoting: LoftyBTW It's of course somewhat scandalous to DRM a printer cartridge, although there is always a (weak) counter argument that a 3rd party cartridge could destroy the printer.Random tangent: it occurs to me that if there were actually a non-infinitesimal chance of a 3rd-party cartridge destroying a printer, printer companies should be all over getting people to use them: "Oh, how sad, that 3rd-party cartridge broke your printer? Welp, guess you learned a lesson, and guess where you need to spend more money getting a replacement printer!" The fact that they'd rather sell obscenely expensive ink with DRM tells me that they know they can get a lot more money that way than from hypothetical printer replacements.
Quoting: LoftyForgetting the hardware vendor for a moment (sony, microsoft, nintendo, valve etc..) Do you think the seller has a right to keep their creative vision locked into a specific platform because that is bothI don't think so, no. Consider a hypothetical example: someone makes, say, a puzzle game that plays on a touchscreen, with no sound effects. Someone blind wishes to play it, so someone else releases a version (don't worry about the details) that works on a different, tactile interface, maybe with added sound cues, etc., whatever is required to make it playable without sight. Does the creator have a right to say, "No!!! It's only to be played on a touchscreen, anything else is destroying the artistic integrity of the work and isn't how I wanted it to be played!"? (For a real-world example, think of the modders releasing Half-Life: Alyx for non-VR systems for people who can't handle playing in VR.)
a.) where they expected to sell it
and
b.) how they wished it to be played ?
Or does the creator, artist developer have no right to expect this ?
Yes, you can indicate how you want people to experience your work. But Death of the Author is a thing, and once a work is out in the real world you can't realistically stop people from poking, prodding, and transforming it; that's just how art and culture work, new things transforming and building upon what came before.
4 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me