Irdeto is a brand that some may not be familiar with, but many will know the name of their controversial anti-piracy software, Denuvo. After attempting to crack down on the piracy of PC games, Irdeto has set its sights on the Nintendo Switch. Believing piracy to be rampant on the platform, either through modded consoles or emulation, Irdeto has unveiled their aptly named "Nintendo Switch Emulator Protection" technology.

As with all other Denuvo solutions, the technology integrates seamlessly into the build toolchain with no impact on the gaming experience. It then allows for the insertion of checks into the code, which blocks gameplay on emulators.

They claim that their solution, which would run similarly to Denuvo, would have occasional checks to ensure the software was legitimate, and prevent the games that use it from being emulated. Irdeto also promises that there is no impact on the gaming performance with it enabled, a claim that has led to many controversies in the past with Denuvo.

Beyond the press release, there's not much known about the Nintendo Switch Emulator Protection, when it will launch, and what games it will launch with. By the phrasing in the announcement, however, it appears that Irdeto is targeting indie developers or third-party studios more than they are Nintendo itself, specifically for multi-platform games that can be protected from piracy on both PC and Switch.

Source

 

[Mortjsf]

imagine sales taking a nosedive off a cliff if/when this is implimented i just hope Pokemon SV isn't affected any other game they churn out with this attached i would be so mortified i wouldn't even pirate it let alone buy it

Do it just to do it
Pirate it just to laugh at how easy it was, then delete the game from the pure boredom that is a Denuvo title.
Also I bet the pokemon franchise stays well away from this for numerous reasons.

 

[sombrerosonic]

Oh, FUCK DENUVO. If that stupid "DRM" makes its way to Xbox, I'm never touching my Xbox again.

Dont worry Xbox has rude DRM anyways

 

[smf]

I'm saying that's what @smf implied.

Nope.

I understand that its free use protected activity and isn't piracy as long as its a personally owned file, and not a downloaded one, but allowing the original brawl files to be turned into the project m iso then redistributing that iso is piracy.

What do you mean "protected activity?" It's still a DMCA violation.

DMCA has nothing to do with piracy.

 

[Mortjsf]

Nope.

What do you mean "protected activity?" It's still a DMCA violation.

DMCA has nothing to do with piracy.

Well sorry, that's how I interpreted your response, I can only reply not make a case for why your context clues were leading to that interpretation of what you said and how you said it.

On the topic of what constitutes piracy:

DMCA has everything to do with piracy. Digital Media Copyright Alliance
This is the Acronym for the ""Big scary media rights corporation"" and they actually go after people for the content they steal.
This is to prevent others from accessing digitally restricted content, it applies to every piece of digital media not open source.
The only reason it exists is to challenge freedom of information, and to protect the owners of copyrighted works.

Dumping your own Rom is 100% legal. Romhacking is protected under fair use. You may hack what you own legally.
Downloading content you already own off the internet archive is also fully legal and isn't piracy since you own the title.
Posting to Internet Archive is legal as long as you own a copy of what you upload.

Reposting any type of rom, or general iso file of your own backed up game for the specific purpose of others to download it, or circumventing the DRM to allow others to copy a full game is where the grey area starts and is typically the line for piracy.
This is despite pirated copies of games running more efficiently without DRM, then with it.

Part of the reason I used Project M iso, and PMEX Remix as examples is because both use not just the entirety of SSBB but also some mod files do contain game sprites, skins, and assets that are considered copyrighted material. There is a case made for stating that certain mods directly rip game assets and skins illegally off the internet and inject them over game files. It doesn't mean the entirety of the repacked iso is 100% illegally pulled assets just that some of the content within the mod itself (SSBB, and the sprites, sounds, movesets... etc...) is infringing on characters licensed under the Nintendo name or in some cases from Sony, or Microsoft depending on who built the mod, or redumped the game.

It turns far more illegal if it is deemed the person is profiting from the circumventing of DMCA rulings, or redistribution of protected content, or even via advertising off the hosting website that holds the infringing content. Typically profiteering off of copyrighted content is the red zone and is entirely illegal which is why I made the distinction of ethical piracy being a thing. Some people just want better framerates or no DRM entirely, so they purely leech and don't redistribute which breaks a cycle of what's considered as ""piracy"". Then there are the people that sell their own copies of brawl mods, which I guess is a gray area if you only sell the mod, but still technically speaking most of the mods come from illegal sources if you aren't ripping all these assets from your own game and for personal use only, and assembling the mod yourself.

When I originally said ethical piracy, I was talking about the former grey area not the latter red zone, as the profit and incentives for doing so often don't outweigh the potential jail time, however there are instances, such as translation as well as release country restrictions that lead to a need for ethical piracy in certain situations.

I can't think of a bigger example off the top of my head then full length translated videos on youtube, full websites backed up via internet archive, your local library selling old dvds, or even the offshot p2p torrenting of a videogame repack. They all give you the tools to find copyrighted content, its up to you to steal that content via copying and redistributing it and that is where the law is broken since the content is not owned outright.

 

[smf]

DMCA has everything to do with piracy.

While DMCA has copyright in the name, and it also includes DMCA take down notices which are for copyright violations. Circumventing access controls was made illegal, whether you violate copyright or not. So in that regard, it has nothing to do with piracy.

A game translation patch that is distributed legally, because it contains none of the original content, isn't then some kind of protected use that console manufacturers have to let you use. If you want to run the game on a switch then you're going to be violating the DMCA. You might have purchased the game legally, downloaded the files to your switch and the patch applied at run time using a file system filter & so it's not piracy in any shape or form, but access controls were still bypassed.

I've not bothered with switch emulators, but if they are running the switch os then they have their own copyright and access control issues too. The sony vs connectix case decision doesn't help (despite many people believing that emulation makes everything legal).

Well sorry, that's how I interpreted your response,

That sounds like a you problem. I can't control how you interpret my posts, only respond after you gleefully misinterpret them because you somehow believe it helps your argument.

 

[tabzer]

While DMCA has copyright in the name, and it also includes DMCA take down notices which are for copyright violations. Circumventing access controls was made illegal, whether you violate copyright or not. So in that regard, it has nothing to do with piracy.

-snip-

The DMCA's introduction outlines the purpose of this is to protect copyright owners' means of protecting their works. Is circumventing access control causing damage? Not by itself--which is why this is a controversial item. There are acknowledged exceptions of allowable circumvention because they specifically do not contradict copyright law, and would be hindered in their rights. Not all possibilities are acknowledged; more specifically ones that are considered fringe use case, or perceptively beneficial to modders. I'd imagine that a media company would not want to sue a modder that hasn't caused damage, as it could potentially establish a precedent that works against the industry and open them up to new channels of fast-tracked litigation.

 

[bonkmaykr]

Alternative release announcement here: https://blog.irdeto.com/video-gaming/emulating-nintendo-switch-games-just-got-harder/

>How does it work? It integrates seamlessly and automatically into your build toolchain and detects differences in the way the game behaves compared to what it has been designed for. In this way, our software can tell that your game has been tampered with – and will make it unplayable.

So it just tests for inaccuracies in emulation, I wonder is that is just perhaps timing, service call, or a cpu/gpu/fpu instruction.

Talk about pointless. Targeting the rough edges emulators are constantly improving on? It won't matter in a year or two. That's not even getting into the fact antipiracy like this will just be cracked and removed anyway.

It sounds more to me like this is an integrity check system. No memory or signature difference means it won't be detected. This isn't an anti-piracy tool, this is an anti-modding tool. So it's not doing the job it promises it will do, it's sole purpose is to fuck people over.

 

[smf]

-snip-

It sounds more to me like this is an integrity check system.

Well it checks the integrity of the platform you're running on. Something like rendering a complex view and then reading back the screen and using that as a decryption key will be pretty fun to emulate properly.

Using free running timers as decryption keys is also fun.

 

[Minox]

Just removed a bunch of nonsense offtopic posts. Don't continue this

 

[pedro702]

did anyone follow up on this? they did an interview and nintendo had nothing to do with this, so people can stop complaining about nintendo being the culpright or whatever for this stuff

 

[Kioku]

did anyone follow up on this? they did an interview and nintendo had nothing to do with this, so people can stop complaining about nintendo being the culpright or whatever for this stuff

Says Denuvo never hurts in game performance...

 

[tabzer]

"What was this then?"

"The developer implemented Denuvo."

"So Denuvo hurt the game performance."

"No, it was a developer's decision."

-snip-

 

[such]

The only thing Denuvo succeeded at was making sure I don't buy games I'm interested in and thus normally would.

 

[tabzer]

The only thing Denuvo succeeded at was making sure I don't buy games I'm interested in and thus normally would.

Well you don't matter because you aren't a pirate.

 

[such]

The point is, Denuvo is shit to the point where I'm more inclined to become one than to deal with all the baggage that comes with it. Yarrr.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Piracy should be legally protected if devs add Denuvo to their game

 

[such]

Better yet: ban this practice as anti-consumer. Which it is.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Better yet: ban this practice as anti-consumer. Which it is.

Also based.

 

[SG854]

Denuvo is great for lowering frames and give a cinematic experience.

 

[Mortjsf]

A game translation patch that is distributed legally, because it contains none of the original content, isn't then some kind of protected use that console manufacturers have to let you use

I didn't say a patch itself is illegal if it doesn't contain assets... Its illegal when it contains files stolen from the original game, or other licensed content from offline which is what some of these brawl projects have done and is a DMCA violation.

The only protected use is archival use, and there is clearly stated exceptions that the DMCA have given to the public to archive their own content, its an easy to google thing.

The reason tools exist for this, and I am for piracy in this instance is because if your console is connected online, and the original company that sold it becomes anti-consumer like what's going on right now, and they can not only break your hardware and its software but wipe everything you paid for entirely from their end.

Denuvo is a middle finger, so hand it back to them.

If you want to run the game on a switch then you're going to be violating the DMCA

Not true at all, for any game period that you own a copy of.

Contrary to unpopular belief its not illegal to install "Linux on a windows PC" go figure... it would be equally not illegal to run your own slideware on the switch like a linux environment, a self coded environment, a third party environment or otherwise.

You own the hardware when you buy it, it doesn't get shipped back to the factory when you die, it is not still property of the company that sold it to you, and neither are its contents or components or the software. What you do with it when you buy it is protected by general consumer protection clauses within most governing bodies.

If you buy a game you have the license to use its romfiles.
If you extract the files from a card you own even via 3rd party hardware and software its a legal copy.
Running them in your own virtual environment is legal to do.
All you do in some cases is change the user environment or permissions on the console itself which when you have purchased the device is legal.

If you switch things around in the operating system, or install your own software onto the hardware there are consumer protection laws that account for alterations to a device that make running and hosting your own files on things/from things legal, otherwise we wouldn't have the internet.

The legality portion only comes into play when you blatantly profit off the theft or reselling of said game assets.

There have been cases where people that did not profit from hacking also were targeted and predated upon only because of their abilities within the world of archival alone, and there are many examples in history of this.

Is circumventing access control causing damage? Not by itself--which is why this is a controversial item

Some people made mods and didn't profit from them and as a result you have the freeware and boot files accessible that you wouldn't ever have to do such a thing, and this is where circumventing access is protected.

I don't know if it doesn't cause damage, it certainly causes revenue loss at some point for the big 3, but when companies put game protection software in their games it boils down to how finely tuned the game is for some consumers. Although in most instances developers develop only to the point it becomes inconvenient to continue bug fixing things due to time constraints and project shifts, most people want the final revisions of the game as it sits, not the 1.0 version, or last available version before the store closed...

You could argue the revenue loss is because of a consoles death, and you can see that with the Wii U not continuing to pull the same revenue for Nintendo with the release of the switch is the leading factor for people wanting circumvention, once the Wii U closes disks are all that are left, and eventually you wont be able to update or play your games.

Either way, gamers will revert to older games, and piracy because as they age the copyright drops off them, there is less policing of abandonware, and they already don't have to worry about this crapware injection affecting their games because a pirated copy, or even just an older game itself isn't going to come with denuvo, and if it does there is a patch already somewhere.