Maybe gather money and buy some of these games instead paying licenses of closed-source games? We can release source code and assets.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: LoftyNintendo make money off of selling hardware and of course a few of their exclusive IP's. You being able to emulate switch on PC won't hurt them one bit, but everyone else doing it with consummate ease en-mass & on a steam deck in higher quality which is just a much better switch like platform would and eventually probably will destroy Nintendo.

Maybe, but that's not the customer's problem. Businesses are not entitled to abusive business models simply on the basis that they wouldn't be able to make money on non-abusive business models. That's why we have antitrust laws, child labour laws, product safety laws and on and on. So if the question is "Should businesses have the right to dictate what hardware I use to run software I bought from them?" the answer does not hinge on whether they will lose money from not being able to do it. Nor does it have anything to do with whether they put some kind of encryption on it to enforce their ability to so dictate, even if there's a law with a clause that says it's illegal to circumvent their encryption.

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.

That's not the same case, it's even worse. In this case, Nintendo restricts platform/hardware you are able to play with games of other companies. It is anti-free-market.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Who allows whom burn the books? Destroying all copies of source code is censorship.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So firm/companies creating Anti Cheat solutions have reason to deliver it to Linux ! ;-D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LachuI do not known English well, so I do not understood everything. As I understood, they emulator allows to play games outside authorized (by Nintendo!) hardware. But, I do not seen anything related to piracy. They mention users use they emulator to piracy, but how? By playing games on PC? Perhaps, Nintendo should not have rights to restrict this. I only reminder, that British government, many years ago, discovered they cannot opens document created in old Office Suite. They decided to switch to OpenOffice, so MS decided to "standardize" (pheff) OOXML. What about case, when you cannot longer play "your" games, because your hardware were broken and cannot buy new?

Parts in the DMCA prohibits sale, distribution and manufacturing of software or hardware that circumvents digital protections. So the issue here is that the emulator circumvented Nintendo's DRM that they use to sell licenses for to for companies to allow them to release software for the platform. And this circumventium is more than "ignore to check", it involves using the encryption keys built into the Switch itself.

Ok, so problem was not a way to play games on PC, but release games on Nintendo hardware, without asking Nintendo for it. It is battle with moders. Even MS get money from modding XBox (Linux media player was very popular in early days of XBox).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I do not known English well, so I do not understood everything. As I understood, they emulator allows to play games outside authorized (by Nintendo!) hardware. But, I do not seen anything related to piracy. They mention users use they emulator to piracy, but how? By playing games on PC? Perhaps, Nintendo should not have rights to restrict this. I only reminder, that British government, many years ago, discovered they cannot opens document created in old Office Suite. They decided to switch to OpenOffice, so MS decided to "standardize" (pheff) OOXML. What about case, when you cannot longer play "your" games, because your hardware were broken and cannot buy new?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

As for long time now, around 70% of games are green!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

"What do you playing lately?"
Nothing special. Team Fortress 2, Albion Online, Humankind.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Lachu

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LachuBad Windows. People are using Windows and get sad. On normal systems, secretary/accountant do not has sufficient rights, but on Windows (with unskilled, cheap admin?). Additionally, Windows is not resist to malware, there was many bad design decision during Windows creating, like opening programs downloaded from internet by double-click, etc.

You don't need admin/root for this attack to work and even on Windows any regular it department would remove admin rights from end users machines.

I know, there is no admin rights, but on Linux, after downloading malicious software, I must point system, this is a software, and I try to open/execute software. On Windows, some one could compile program with nice photography as icon, told me, this is photography from trip and I would open it! That's all...

Yes Windows have this idiotic tendency to use the file extension to determine what icon to view while using the actual meta data of the file when opening it leading to the user believing that they are clicking on a PDF while actually executing a EXE.

The popup for executing scripts/binaries that you talk about I think is more a Gnome (I also assume that KDE does it) thing than a Linux thing, but that might be semantics. So here I definitely agree that the Linux desktop environment handles this a million times better than Windows.

One caveat though is that attacks like these just as easily could use exploits in the browser/pdf-viewer/image-viewer etc to execute code rather than executing a binary and then we no longer have this protection (but here instead the fragmented Linux distro environment makes us safer in that the attacker doesn't know which browser or viewer that we are using or what version).

Yes. Even opening page in Web Browser or watching movie in Video Player, or viewing image in Image Viewer, PDF... could infect our computer. But see this in that way: use bug in these programs is much harder and what you say - attackers could only attack in one way, so attack vector is smaller, harder to use, etc. Bug in programs are patched, but this bug in Windows exists from beginning and still was not patched. Creating exe file pretending to be image, etc. is very simple, detecting and use bugs in programs is very hard. I will told this: attacking Linux requires skills and doing directed attack, but on Windows, hackers tend to use attack for the masses. One infected machine program are used to attack others computers, because attacking is so simple. Hackers have good days, because Windows. Even if we assume users are stupid and that's reason for spreading viruses, stupid users on other systems cannot be reason for spreading viruses, in fact, user must be very stupid, so told system: I know, that is a program, just execute it (or another: i known, that is a program, execute it and give it all permissions).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mad_mesaAya are a Windows OEM. So they have almost certainly signed an agreement with Microsoft that includes language that in return for lower prices for Windows, they agree to (among other things) obtain a license for Microsoft's patents on every Windows-compatible system they sell. Shipping a licensed Windows install on the device grants the license, anything else pre-installed requires an additional fee paid to Microsoft to license their patents.

They probably thought that if SteamOS (or their own Linux distribution) didn't violate Microsoft's patents they wouldn't have to pay, and Microsoft reminded them that doesn't get them out of the terms of the agreement because those devices can still run Windows so it wouldn't matter.

The only way out of it is to not be a Windows OEM at all, use some kind of Windows-incompatible boot process, or fight Microsoft in court over the terms of a contract they entered into, all of which Aya aren't willing to do.

You are truth. There are rumors from companies in European telling court, MS sign trade ordering it to pay MS for each sold devices as it has Windows preinstalled, even if it does not. Of course, Windows license normally costs 100$ (around), but MS makes big deal for companies, which sign devil trade with MS. In this case, companies could install Windows on device, for example, for 20$, but it must install Windows on every device.
Companies sign trade, even if Windows is bad, because client seen this: same PC configuration without Windows license costs 70$ less and Windows license costs 100$. And people thinking Windows is good, because it normally costs 100$, so that's a deal!
In that way Windows got world domination - simple by users dull. User thinking Windows is good, because there no option in many stores to buy devices without Windows and Windows costs 100$. But this is only magic.
And, if user order device manufacturer/reseller to refund Windows costs, they must refund 100$, because Windows real costs is secret. In this case, hardware vendors does everything to not refund Windows, even telling lies about Linux, creating rumors, etc.
That was great strategy!

View this comment - View article - View full comments