For now at least. Given Nintendo's efforts to get rid of Yuzu and Ryujinx I think it's likely that the legal days may be numbered. All they have to do is get it in front of the right judge(s) and the precedent by the Connectix and the Bleem lawsuits is undone.
Not that I particularly care if it's legal; I seriously doubt anyone is going to break into my house to seize my MiSTer as contraband, but I think it's entirely possible that emulation progress stalls because it's forced to move into the shadows.
In the music industry they have a saying about sampling and IP clearance which easily applies here too: "The lawfulness of your actions is directly related to your law firm fees compared to the other part".
Are Dolphin and emulation in general going to be legal in the future? Easy, if Nintendo chooses to go with Morrison & Foerster or Fish & Richardson for a lawsuit I'm going with "no".
That depends on the country. In Australia, there is an explicit carve-out in the Copyright Act to allow for backups of computer programs[1], and there is also a widely held belief (at least, according to the government) that backups of this kind in general are also considered fair use[2]. Actually, it seems there is a somewhat similar carve-out in the US as well[3].
>there is an explicit carve-out in the Copyright Act to allow for backups of computer programs
But there is not a carve out for breaking DRM to do so. It's not the backup part that is the problem with dumping them. It's that these games are encrypted and decrypting them requires breaking the DRM scheme which is illegal.
There is a separate carve-out for breaking DRM for the purposes of "interoperability"[1], which (as far as I understand) is generally believed to include emulators.
I also disagree more broadly with the initial moral indignation over a perceived violation of copyright law -- legality and morality are two different things, copyright law is meant to be a balanced trade-off between the public and creators but modern copyright laws are a travesty. What ever happened to the hacker ethos behind DeCSS and the anti-"illegal numbers" movement?
>will be done for the sole purpose of achieving interoperability
It's for solely achieving interoperability. It only covers the development of the emulator. Using it to get a picture for explaining what a game is in the blog post is not DRM being broken for solely achieving interoperability.
>What ever happened to the hacker ethos behind DeCSS and the anti-"illegal numbers" movement?
In practice the idea that you can't break laws if you are doing things via a computer is fundamentally flawed.
Even if gaming goes to the cloud, how are they going to run the massive existing library of video games on the dedicated AI inference hardware that everyone is buying right now? Seems like that pivot would require even more spending.
And how are they going to get sub-5ms round trip latency into the average consumer’s home to avoid people continuing to see cloud gaming as a janky gimmick that feels bad to use?
Sometimes it's both. I had some crazy data corruption problems that turned out to be a one-two punch of a buggy anti-cheat driver from a game I was playing and a defective M.2 SSD slot on my motherboard. Without the combination of both factors everything was fine, but when I played the game with that slot populated, the disk in that slot started getting corrupted and failing to respond to requests from the OS (eventually hanging the system).
I've been using Puget workstations for like 10 years now and the builds are really reliable. The one time I had issues with a build (not their fault - defective parts), they went the extra mile and rebuilt it after normal troubleshooting failed.
They do a lot of careful thermal testing and for the inside of their builds they often cut special acrylic dividers, flowguides, supports etc to manage airflow and make sure nothing comes loose like a heavy GPU.
It's even a bad deal for the rightsholder. There are lots of stories in video games of how a studio or publisher lost the original source code or assets for a game, then 5, 10 or 20 years later they want to remaster it and they can't do so without jumping through really elaborate hoops involving binary recompilation, emulation, repainting assets from scratch, etc.
If the code and assets were escrowed, the rightsholder could just go claim that stuff whenever they need it.
Apple generally frowns upon things like that. At one point they wouldn't even let you disclose in your UI that Apple was taking a 30% cut of transactions, it was against the rules to do so.
I agree that 30% is high but the arguments I see online are generally in favor of a cut to 0%, not a reduction. If you get into the weeds of what the cut should be then it gets messy, who gets to decide? How do you determine what is actually fair for all parties?
I would argue Patreon is far more parasitic than Apple in this case, they're shaving off 10% for a pretty simple service.
Payment processors are generally really wary of services like Patreon. Cohost tried to set one up and was unable to find someone willing to stick by a commitment to process payments for an equivalent service.
I think it's reasonable to say Patreon shouldn't take 10%, but you can't ring up Visa and get a regular 2-3% rate from them for something like Patreon, most likely, due to things like brand risk, chargeback rates, etc.
Then there's all the administrative overhead involved in disbursing payments to creators from all sorts of different legal jurisdictions and reporting information to the right government agencies. I can easily imagine the operating costs of Patreon being something like 7-8% of the money they handle.
I haven't seen anyone in this particular thread calling for Apple's cut to be 0%. I do think they could afford that, but a common refrain is that Epic's rate of 12% would be sustainable, and I agree with that. It's also the case that Apple moved to a gradual rate system where low-income developers only pay 15%, which kind of proves that they don't actually need 30%, they just want 30%.
reply