# HyperKin Retron5 steals code from Emulator Developers.



## CheatFreak47 (Oct 2, 2014)

Read Up: 1 2

Apparently the Retron5 uses a bunch of GPL/Nonspecific Licensed code for it's emulation violating the license(s) and rights of developers of several open sourced emulators. Usually with this kind of thing, you'd ask the developer for permission or for an exception to the license to be made, but here, hyperkin seems to have completely disregarded the licenses.

To be honest, I seen this coming, but I never had any way to prove my suspicions. I always sincerely doubted they wrote their own emulators for their weird console emulator machine.

Some of the emulators used are GenPlus GX, Snes9x Next, FCEUmm, and VBA Next.

Personally I think that's quite disgusting for a company to do.
Then again, what can you expect really from the makers of the PS3 Game Genie?

Anyone planning on getting a Retron5 out there, think again about supporting a company who flat out stole code from emulator developers and had no plans to tell anyone about it until someone ripped apart their firmware.

Thoughts, Tempers?
mine below


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Oct 2, 2014)

It's not the first time this happens, and it probably won't be the last. Honestly I am just happy they actually used good emulators as the basis, as the alternative would be to code their own (inferior) emulators, but wouldn't buy such a device anyway, since it just does what every other device I already have does.


----------



## Celice (Oct 2, 2014)

This reminds me a bit of those Nintendo published GBA games that took code from an NES emulator without asking the author, and used and sold it without crediting the author.


----------



## cracker (Oct 2, 2014)

IMO it's not as bad as Jaleco using PocketNES' code for an official game bundle. After all, they aren't making "legit" hardware any more than those cheap HK NES clones with 1,000,000in1 games included.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 2, 2014)

What sucks is honestly, even though they've stolen the code, there's nothing anyone can do. Retron5 is a greyzone product, even if they sued the case won't go anywhere.


----------



## GHANMI (Oct 2, 2014)

Celice said:


> This reminds me a bit of those Nintendo published GBA games that took code from an NES emulator without asking the author, and used and sold it without crediting the author.


 
I'd love to hear more about it.
Also, some people found out the Wii version of the SNES Virtual Console emulator was taken from an old Mac SNES emulator (that's also missing emulation for special chips)


----------



## CheatFreak47 (Oct 2, 2014)

GHANMI said:


> I'd love to hear more about it.
> Also, some people found out the Wii version of the SNES Virtual Console emulator was taken from an old Mac SNES emulator (that's also missing emulation for special chips)


 
Ya know, that actually makes sense because older macs use PowerPC, much like the Nintendo Wii. Any information on if the developer of that emulator gave nintendo permission to use his emulator?


----------



## Celice (Oct 2, 2014)

GHANMI said:


> I'd love to hear more about it.
> Also, some people found out the Wii version of the SNES Virtual Console emulator was taken from an old Mac SNES emulator (that's also missing emulation for special chips)


Sure. There's a third post where someone shows explicitly that it's the same emulator, but I can't find it now. Wish reddit had a search comment feature, it'd be way faster as I already wrote about this in the past 

http://www.pocketheaven.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=965
http://waxy.org/2004/07/jaleco_borrows/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PocketNES

There was also a thread detailing the patent thing, and a good discussion about how it wasn't just the same idea, but the exact same method. I think a few in the scene really flared up over that.

This isn't the only time emulators have been taken and used in commercial, for-profit games. I believe one of the DS contra games include one too, but were kind enough to credit the original author in the game credits


----------



## Ericthegreat (Oct 2, 2014)

I like emulators, but I must say most emulators are made with piracy in mind, so whatever.


----------



## cracker (Oct 2, 2014)

It'll be great to pair this with a SD2SNES when the SuperFX emulation is complete. Dual emulation baby!


----------



## Minox (Oct 2, 2014)

Celice said:


> This reminds me a bit of those Nintendo published GBA games that took code from an NES emulator without asking the author, and used and sold it without crediting the author.


Since the emulator in question was public domain they legally didn't need to do any of that.


----------



## Celice (Oct 2, 2014)

Minox said:


> Since the emulator in question was public domain they legally didn't need to do any of that.


Can you patent something in the public domain?


----------



## cdoty (Oct 2, 2014)

CheatFreak47 said:


> Apparently the Retron5 uses a bunch of GPL/Nonspecific Licensed code for it's emulation, and they didn't even ask, thus violating the license(s) and rights of emulator developers.


 
There is no requirement to 'ask' to use GPL code, and no limitations against commercial use. The only limitation they could be violating is that they are required to release the source code.

In fact that is the purpose of actually releasing code with a license. The author is clearly specifying when, where, and how the code may be used.

The ones mentioned do seem to be an issue, not because of GPL, but because they specifically only allow non-commercial use.


----------



## Jayro (Oct 2, 2014)

Publicly available source code can be freely modified and sold. I don't see what the big deal is if they used publicly available source code in the product they're selling. If the authors wanted a piece of that pie, they should have sold the code closed source.


----------



## Normmatt (Oct 2, 2014)

Jayro said:


> Publicly available source code can be freely modified and sold. I don't see what the big deal is if they used publicly available source code in the product they're selling. If the authors wanted a piece of that pie, they should have sold the code closed source.


 

It was released under strict licenses and they ignored them entirely... didn't contact any authors either.


----------



## Minox (Oct 2, 2014)

Celice said:


> Can you patent something in the public domain?


Where does it say that said companies patented anything that originated from the Pocketnes source code?

Unless of course you're referring to Nintendo's patent which I agree would be questionable, but that's unrelated to the above mentioned companies' products.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Oct 2, 2014)

I don't get why people even bother buying these Retron consoles because they're built in with emulators so you could just as well just do that on your PC without paying them a dime for it.


----------



## CheatFreak47 (Oct 2, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> I don't get why people even bother buying these Retron consoles because they're built in with emulators so you could just as well just do that on your PC without paying them a dime for it.


 

It takes advantage of the retro gamer. People who have shelves of games, and those kind of people want to play their physical media.
So the Retron5 is a viable option because it provides emulation features in a unit that still plays their physical media.

The idea, in and of itself isn't so bad, it's the fact that all the emulators were straight up copies of licensed open source emulators that's wrong.
It hurt's hyperkin's reputation and all they had to do to prevent this in the future was contact the developers of these emulators and ask.
When some piece of code is released under a license, then anyone seeking to use that code is legally obligated to either Adhere to all the terms of the license, or ask the developer for explicit permission for it to be used.

Take Genesis Plus GX for example. EkeEke wrote that software and released it on google code with a license that explicitly states in the very first list of terms that his program is not to be used in a commercial product. This is completely disrespectful to the developers both emulators and homebrew alike. Additionally GPLv3 (what most of these emulators are released under) prevents the programs from being redistributed in such a way that inhibits it's use. (Aka, the prevention of TiVoIzation) The RetroN5 does exactly this by locking users out of running roms on the system, and it also disallows end users from modifying the emulators themselves, which the GPL is designed specifically to allow.

It's even more scummy because it's like biting the hand that feeds you in a sense, the RetroN5 is absolutely dependent on this software to function and hyperkin did it wrong.
What really blows is that this "clone console" got tons more publicity than it would have ordinarily because Hyperkin sent out review units to many youtubers, many of which praised the console, and more sales = more profit for the shady company.



Ericthegreat said:


> I like emulators, but I must say most emulators are made with piracy in mind, so whatever.


 
Emulators aren't the wrong party here, they're designed to replicate all functions of a certain hardware in software only. Nothing is copied from the source because the source itself is hardware. If software included on specific hardware must be used then emulators are expected to either replicate the calls of that software with new code or the emulator requires the end user input said software themselves. The fact that obtaining the software in a usable format may or may not be difficult (ie, legal backups vs mass distribution of roms) is not at the fault of the developers of emulators. 

Blaming the emulator for the piracy they can be used for is like blaming the gun when someone get's shot. It's missing the point entirely.



Spoiler: TL:DR:



Piss off, read it you lazy ass.


----------



## dragonblood9999 (Oct 2, 2014)

i was thinking of getting one, but i heard it doesn't work with any everdrive and i really wanted the hdmi output


----------



## Celice (Oct 2, 2014)

Minox said:


> Where does it say that said companies patented anything that originated from the Pocketnes source code?
> 
> Unless of course you're referring to Nintendo's patent which I agree would be questionable, but that's unrelated to the above mentioned companies' products.


In the wikipedia entry, it shows that Nintendo patented the scaling method used by PocketNES, which was not their original property.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 2, 2014)

If it's open source, you can use it as long as you include the original license. You don't need to notify anyone, I don't know what gave people the idea that any tribute is required. Releasing your source code online as open source and getting upset that someone uses it is like leaving your wallet on the pavement and getting upset if someone robs you.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Oct 2, 2014)

CheatFreak47 said:


> Emulators aren't the wrong party here, they're designed to replicate all functions of a certain hardware in software only. Nothing is copied from the source because the source itself is hardware. If software included on specific hardware must be used then emulators are expected to either replicate the calls of that software with new code or the emulator requires the end user input said software themselves. The fact that obtaining the software in a usable format may or may not be difficult (ie, legal backups vs mass distribution of roms) is not at the fault of the developers of emulators.
> 
> Blaming the emulator for the piracy they can be used for is like blaming the gun when someone get's shot. It's missing the point entirely.
> 
> ...


I disagree, I feel its more like buying a gun with intent to kill someone. At least in the majority of cases. What percentage of people dump bios instead of downloading it? Bonus points for an actual figure. (and yes I Know not all emu require bios) Now I suppose the devs themselves at as much at fault, but still they know their program will be used for piracy. In the end im just saying, why should we care that it is then copied?


----------



## Shadow#1 (Oct 2, 2014)

LOL this isnt the first time a company stole code for things Nintendo has done it many times for some the ds games that have emulated roms in them


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 2, 2014)

It's not _"stealing"_ if it's free in the first place and you include the original license, which is something most companies actually do.


----------



## Celice (Oct 2, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> It's not _"stealing"_ if it's free in the first place and you include the original license, which is something most companies actually do.


So what's the deal if Nintendo patents something that was open-source? Is that even allowed? It feels like this would be taking something open-source and forcing it to be no longer open.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 2, 2014)

Celice said:


> So what's the deal if Nintendo patents something that was open-source? Is that even allowed? It feels like this would be taking something open-source and forcing it to be no longer open.


You can't patent something that you did not invent - the credit goes to the original licenser, not the licensee. If you do manage to patent a pre-existing _"product"_, whatever that may be, the original creator can easily void said patent by showing what's called _"prior art"_, meaning a set of background information that may cast a shadow on the validity of the patent. Whatever you patent has to be original work, that's how the system works.


----------



## Jacobeian (Oct 5, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> If it's open source, you can use it as long as you include the original license. You don't need to notify anyone, I don't know what gave people the idea that any tribute is required. Releasing your source code online as open source and getting upset that someone uses it is like leaving your wallet on the pavement and getting upset if someone robs you.



The thing is that they first tried to hide the fact they were using open-source emulators (they were even talking about using hardware emulation, which was a marketing lie all along), they only admitted it when some hackers analyzed the firmware and figured their code was 99% identical to existing emulators. Also, they are still not including or displaying the original license in their product, people who buy the Retron 5 are not informed about the nature of the software they are using unless they go to hyperkin homepage and find the "license" page. Most open-source licenses need you to put the license information in the product itself if it is delivered in bundle form.

There is also the fact that snes9x and genplusgx sourcecode is not open-source and authorized for non-commercial use only. You can argue that the sourcecode is still available so people shouldn't be surprised anyone can do whatever they want with it but that still does not excuse them for not respecting the license. What they should have done is contact copyright owners and ask for a license exception, maybe having to pay some fees to them in compensation... What they did instead was completely ignoring the license, show no respect to original authors and simply use their code to save themselves thousand of hours of software development, to make as much profits as possible

So really, they have no excuse for what they did and should be ashamed, not defended. They lied to their customers and potential buyers, they made profit of others work and they are asking $139 (now even increased to $179 !) for a cheap box with a FPGA board dumping ROM from cartridge and a basic software interface running emulators written by others for free.



Ericthegreat said:


> In the end im just saying, why should we care that it is then copied?



1) because this is morally wrong: emulator developers usually do not do this for piracy, more for learning new things and because they like console hardware reverse-engineering, they also do not gain anything from their work and do not do it for the money. Companies like Hyperkin, on the opposite, are clearly only interested in making as much profit as possible on the currently hyped retrogaming market. They do not give a shit to original authors, they only took this as a business opportunity to increase their margin on the product by taking already available work and passing it as their own. They are also very much aware that original authors do not have the money or man power to take legal actions against them.

2) because this is sending a bad signal to emulator coders and open-source developers in general: if any company can take the work you basically spent years on without giving a shit to you and without being in trouble, why should you continue to work on open-source emulators for free ? Why not simply ask money for your work and make it closed-source so you have full control on it ?  Keep in mind that the only reason we are able to play all these old games for free on hacked consoles like the Wii or Xbox is because those open-source emulators existed in the first place and were improved along all these years by benevolent contributors respecting the original license. If people stop doing this, we will end up with only crappy proprietary emulation "products" like NeoGeoX and Retron5, sold for insane prices, with no other "free" or "open" solutions.


----------



## tbb043 (Oct 5, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> You can't patent something that you did not invent



Sure you can. Happens all the time. That's what patent trolls do. Find something that hasn't been patented and patent it, then sue whoever's already been using it. It's a system even more fucked up than copyrights.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 5, 2014)

tbb043 said:


> Sure you can. Happens all the time. That's what patent trolls do. Find something that hasn't been patented and patent it, then sue whoever's already been using it. It's a system even more fucked up than copyrights.



Really? Most patent trolls I see tend to be the ones that buy failing or failed companies for their IP portfolio and use that, others might abuse the system to slide through a patent that would normally get struck down for being obvious, there being prior art or it generally not being all that applicable and counting on the fact that a patent case in actual court is expensive where paying off people is less expensive.

Equally "Find something that hasn't been patented and patent it" would seem to be the object of the system.


----------



## raulpica (Oct 5, 2014)

I don't get why anyone would EVER want one of these. People who want to use carts are usually people who can't stand emulators and want to use the real thing - and the RetroN5 does exactly the OPPOSITE of that!

The only way to explain this is that Hyperkin with the RetroN5 just wants to scam retrogamers making them think that this ISN'T emulation - otherwise they can do that just fine on pratically everything, Samsung Android-powered fridges included.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 5, 2014)

raulpica said:


> I don't get why anyone would EVER want one of these. People who want to use carts are usually people who can't stand emulators and want to use the real thing - and the RetroN5 does exactly the OPPOSITE of that!
> 
> The only way to explain this is that Hyperkin with the RetroN5 just wants to scam retrogamers making them think that this ISN'T emulation - otherwise they can do that just fine on pratically everything, Samsung Android-powered fridges included.


Essentially devices like this are for people who don't want to pirate ROM's, but don't want to go through the trouble of getting and maintaining old systems or having a stack of them by their TV's. It's the convenience of being able to emulate several systems with just one box without ever going into the _"grey"_ area of illegal downloads or the pain of having to dump your cartridges or discs.

As for _"trying to hide the use of open source software"_, the licenses might be embedded into the source code itself, you never know. It's definitely naughty not to mention the original creators in at least a manual though, I'll agree to that extent.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Oct 5, 2014)

Isn't open source with a paywall for those who're going to use it commercially so they have to pay a fee? I've read that on apps like Team Viewer and such so this shouldn't be any different.

Maybe after Nintendo sues Hyperkin they'll finally get off their asses and develop a new Metroid game.


----------



## raulpica (Oct 5, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Essentially devices like this are for people who don't want to pirate ROM's, but don't want to go through the trouble of getting and maintaining old systems or having a stack of them by their TV's. It's the convenience of being able to emulate several systems with just one box without ever going into the _"grey"_ area of illegal downloads or the pain of having to dump your cartridges or discs.


You'd think that people able to question legality to that extent would be stupid to not worry about a MAGICAL 5-in-1 CONSOLE from an UNKNOWN COMPANY which plausibily has NO RIGHTS whatsoever to the consoles in question 

tl;dr it's a scam


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 5, 2014)

Jayro said:


> Publicly available source code can be freely modified and sold. I don't see what the big deal is if they used publicly available source code in the product they're selling. If the authors wanted a piece of that pie, they should have sold the code closed source.


That's just not true.  Just because something is open source, does not mean that anybody can do whatever they like with the source code.  Open source code released without any license inherently leaves all the rights with the author.  You will often see code released with the GNU Public License, which allows people to modify the source code and sell it, however it requires that all modifications made to the code be made public and released with the same license.  There are more permissive licenses like the BSD license which allows you to modify the code, sell it, and not release your changes (OS X, for example, was built off of the BSD Operating System that comes with the BSD license).  Red Hat Enterprise Linux, on the other hand, is a distribution of Linux by RedHat, which uses the GPL license, and so even though they sell their operating system, they are also legally obligated to release the source code which has resulted in an equivalent free OS, CentOS.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 5, 2014)

raulpica said:


> You'd think that people able to question legality to that extent would be stupid to not worry about a MAGICAL 5-in-1 CONSOLE from an UNKNOWN COMPANY which plausibily has NO RIGHTS whatsoever to the consoles in question
> 
> tl;dr it's a scam


It doesn't have to have any rights to the consoles in question if it doesn't infringe on their patents. That, and it's more a matter of simple comfort of use. The way most people see it, if a product is legally in circulation then it's probably fine to buy it - deliberations about whether or not it's infringing on copyrights is not up to the customer, it's up to the authorities in charge of what gets onto the market and what doesn't. Meanwhile, downloading a ROM is always as illegal as it gets and most people don't want to engage in that when they have a readily available alternative that plays their legally purchased games.


----------



## Jayro (Oct 5, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> That's just not true. Just because something is open source, does not mean that anybody can do whatever they like with the source code. Open source code released without any license inherently leaves all the rights with the author. You will often see code released with the GNU Public License, which allows people to modify the source code and sell it, however it requires that all modifications made to the code be made public and released with the same license. There are more permissive licenses like the BSD license which allows you to modify the code, sell it, and not release your changes (OS X, for example, was built off of the BSD Operating System that comes with the BSD license). Red Hat Enterprise Linux, on the other hand, is a distribution of Linux by RedHat, which uses the GPL license, and so even though they sell their operating system, they are also legally obligated to release the source code which has resulted in an equivalent free OS, CentOS.


 
I don't live in your world full of licenses, I just do what I want with whatever code I get my hands on. If people don't like it, they can get in line with the rest of the bitches, and wait for me to give a fuck.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 5, 2014)

Jayro said:


> I don't live in your world full of licenses, I just do what I want with whatever code I get my hands on. If people don't like it, they can get in line with the rest of the bitches, and wait for me to give a fuck.


Wow, you're such a rebel.  I can only hope to be as cool as you one day.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 5, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Isn't open source with a paywall for those who're going to use it commercially so they have to pay a fee? I've read that on apps like Team Viewer and such so this shouldn't be any different.



Short version. No, not at all and most things that fall under the banner of open source are anything but a paywall for commercial use. Likewise teamviewer is not open source in any capacity that I have ever seen.

Long version... well we would be here all week. I will go for the slightly condensed version

Owing to various well known problems (most notably things like the halting problem) computer programs can be written and have you not easily figure out how does what it does. The way this happens is when something is written in a high level language and is converted (compiled) into machine code. The code in the high level language is known as source code.
As programs count as copyrighted works you can then have a program distributed to do a task but not be edited/dissected easily. You then get to charge for updates, versions with more features, versions that work on other types of computer, versions that work with newer types of format/data.... all that stuff you are used to with upgrades and different versions.

Open source is when a program has its source released, however it goes somewhat further than that and this is where it gets contentious as various groups have various opinions on what counts and what does not. For instance Microsoft recently released the source code to earlier versions of MS DOS ( http://gbatemp.net/threads/microsof...rce-code-also-word-for-windows-source.363749/ ), however the license associated with it is very restrictive if you want to comply with it ( http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/microsoft-research-license-agreement-msdos-v1-1-v2-0/ ). Other projects that get called open source have all sorts of different things attached to them, almost all of them will allow use of the software for free in any capacity, where it gets tricky is when you modify the source code released, use some of the source code in a library to do a task in your other program* and what you have to do in those cases.
Some open source licenses will see me have to make available the changes I make if I want to distribute my changed version publicly (if I keep it within my company or for myself I do not have to do a thing, I may even be able to put my modded version on a web server and not have to do a thing but allow the public to access that), others will not have that restriction and I can release whatever I want and not have to share my changes, in all cases I can charge for the software, however if it is open source then it is kind of pointless to charge** for the software in a similar model to how I might charge for closed source (someone else can get the code, compile it and distribute that for everybody else) so I instead might charge for support for the software/provide support with the paid version.

*programs interacting with each other can also be fun to work through. For instance me calling a program via the command line probably does not count as me using open source code, me taking said code and making a library from it and using that in my program probably does and it only gets odder from there. Knowing this the GPL license family (one of the main ones to try to force code changes to be released) made the lesser GPL (aka LGPL) which several projects will license or dual license their libraries under.

**several companies still do charge for software, most notably things like SUSE linux though it also then has things like opensuse made from it, also things like CentOS which aims to be compatible with the paid for distribution known as RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux).

Open source also does not mean you, as a developer, surrender your rights to the program either. To that end if I developed an open source program (say under the GPL license) I could still say you can use it under the GPL, or if that is too restrictive then call me up and I will allow you to buy the rights to use it under some other license.

Finally if you think this is tricky I advise you never look at Microsoft's licensing agreements.... not all that large companies may well have a person with a full time job to ensure license compliance with just Microsoft software. As a sneak peak their licenses may vary depending upon how many CPUs you have in your system, how many people are accessing it at once (and this number can be as low as 10 for something as basic as SMB file shares -- http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb147520(v=winembedded.5).aspx ). And if you think Microsoft is bad never look at Cisco and definitely never look at Oracle databases. Oh and there are no software patents in several countries so you might also have that to deal with (or indeed ignore if you live in a place that lacks them).


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 5, 2014)

Jayro said:


> I don't live in your world full of licenses, I just do what I want with whatever code I get my hands on. If people don't like it, they can get in line with the rest of the bitches, and wait for me to give a fuck.


You do live in the same world of licenses, you just haven't been hit in the face with a lawsuit yet. Credit goes where credit's due - if you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't code. Don't be a lamer - when you use someone's code, mention that someone in your product.


----------



## Jayro (Oct 5, 2014)

It's a good thing I can't code anything, I don't even know programming beyond BASIC. But of the BASIC I do know, I can program for the Commodore 64, the Apple II/e, and several Texas Instruments calculators like the TI-82, TI-83, TI-83 Plus, TI-84, TI-85, and the TI-86. Copying and pasting things into Windows batch files are about the extent of my "code borrowing", so calm down.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 5, 2014)

Jayro said:


> It's a good thing I can't code anything, I don't even know programming beyond BASIC. But of the BASIC I do know, I can program for the Commodore 64, the Apple II/e, and several Texas Instruments calculators like the TI-82, TI-83, TI-83 Plus, TI-84, TI-85, and the TI-86. Copying and pasting things into Windows batch files are about the extent of my "code borrowing", so calm down.


I'm very calm. All I'm saying is that _"borrowing"_ code from other developers and claiming it as your own is a pretty big deal, it always has been, even in the _"open source"_ or _"homebrew"_ community.


----------



## Shadow#1 (Oct 5, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> *If it's open source, you can use it as long as you include the original license.* You don't need to notify anyone, I don't know what gave people the idea that any tribute is required. Releasing your source code online as open source and getting upset that someone uses it is like leaving your wallet on the pavement and getting upset if someone robs you.


 
and they never do


----------



## DJPlace (Oct 5, 2014)

Retrotron suck just buy the real system for Jolly old times.


----------



## CheatFreak47 (Oct 6, 2014)

DJPlace said:


> Retrotron suck just buy the real system for golly's sake.


 
Retrotron. Also, I agree.
Who's golly?


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 6, 2014)

DJPlace said:


> Retrotron suck just buy the real system for golly's sake.



If they had did what they claimed (made a hardware compatible, or better yet an improved version of the original hardware, device that can still read the legacy carts/discs) then I can see it having some merit, be it for reducing the amount of junk under my screen or for making life easier in some other way.


----------



## DJPlace (Oct 6, 2014)

CheatFreak47 said:


> Retrotron. Also, I agree.
> Who's golly?


 
i meant to say Jolly Old Times.

yeah Retro Collection i have tried alot and alot of times but... i just can't do it... i have the urge to trade stuff in... heck i had a goal to collect every rare NES game NSTC side on this rariety list. and the last list i had was from 2000.


----------



## Issac (Oct 6, 2014)

Who would buy a Retron5 anyway? I would, and have. 
I have a lot of old games that I like to play. The old consoles looks like shit on my hdtv. Retron5 will with it's hdmi output look a lot better. Yes, it's emulation, but it still feels good to play my cartridges.
And then there's the save backups from the carts to the retron, *and back*! Many of my games' batteries have died, and this is a way for me to "save" those saves. 
I could as well emulate with my computer and hook it up to my tv, but I feel better in my heart playing my carts for some reason.


----------



## mkdms14 (Oct 6, 2014)

Was not planing on getting this anyway.  Too expensive and it can't play roms.  I can do all of this and more on my modded Wii.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

mkdms14 said:


> Was not planing on getting this anyway. Too expensive and it can't play roms. I can do all of this and more on my modded Wii.


Your Wii can't play cartridges, ergo it can't do anything the Retron was designed to do.


----------



## mkdms14 (Oct 6, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Your Wii can't play cartridges, ergo it can't do anything the Retron was designed to do.


 
True but it doesn't need to play cartridges I got the whole Nintendo library availably on my wii to play.  The only advantage that the Retron 5 in my mind has over the a modded Wii is the ability to play on HD TVs with the HDMI port which the Wii doesn't have.  If you really want to play cartridge games the way they were meant to be play not requiring emulations which the retron is using emulation is go out and buy the actual console.  I see this type of thing only appealing to a small audience.  I would imagine a lot of hard core people would just buy the old console over this but hey to each is there own.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Oct 8, 2014)

Issac said:


> Who would buy a Retron5 anyway? I would, and have.
> I have a lot of old games that I like to play. The old consoles looks like shit on my hdtv. Retron5 will with it's hdmi output look a lot better. Yes, it's emulation, but it still feels good to play my cartridges.
> And then there's the save backups from the carts to the retron, *and back*! Many of my games' batteries have died, and this is a way for me to "save" those saves.
> I could as well emulate with my computer and hook it up to my tv, but I feel better in my heart playing my carts for some reason.


Or you could get scaler like XRGB-Mini to looks even better than what R5 will offer.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 8, 2014)

trumpet-205 said:


> Or you could get scaler like XRGB-Mini to looks even better than what R5 will offer.


 

Which costs helluva lot more than the Retron-5 does, which is also easier to set up.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Oct 8, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> Which costs helluva lot more than the Retron-5 does, which is also easier to set up.


Well it is either that or PC emulation. I seriously doubt R5 will house decent video scaler.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 8, 2014)

trumpet-205 said:


> Well it is either that or PC emulation. I seriously doubt R5 will house decent video scaler.


 

Still lot better than how the original consoles on HDTVs look, and they have the filters that emulators have. An Snes or Genesis on a new TV looks like a pile of crap, believe me, I've tried, 240 ain't that grand. The XRGB-mini is too expensive, way more than the R5. They have filtering that is similar to how PC does it. Just saying. The scaler is too overpriced.


http://www.amazon.com/DP3913515-Fra...caler-Import/dp/B006H39XJS?tag=donations09-20


$375 is too much.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 8, 2014)

I'm trying to remember who it was, but someone on Mod Retro replaced the PPA chip on the NES, I believe, to output a better picture.


trumpet-205 said:


> Well it is either that or PC emulation. I seriously doubt R5 will house decent video scaler.


You can also replace the video encoder on the system like Drakon does.


----------



## VashTS (Oct 8, 2014)

I commented on NES punks youtube video podcast about this matter so I'll say it again here cuz i feel like sharing my opinion...

Its definitely deceitful no doubt. They could get around this by simply ensuring you are paying for the hardware ONLY and the hardware can run the software. As long as the buyer is not specifically paying for the software, its within moral guidelines to me. 

If I buy a used PC and they left their files on there and it included emulators that are freeware then that is fine. 
If someone sells me SNES9x on a flash drive, that is not fine.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 8, 2014)

VashTS said:


> If someone sells me SNES9x on a flash drive, that is not fine.



In the case of SNES9X that might apply (its license does prohibit commercial use), however if it is most other kinds of open source then that would be perfectly fine on several levels, not least of all because of lines like

"a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License,* on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange,* for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, "
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html part 6.
http://xkcd.com/949/


----------



## Issac (Oct 8, 2014)

trumpet-205 said:


> Well it is either that or PC emulation. I seriously doubt R5 will house decent video scaler.


 
Have you seen the R5 in action? It looks great in my opinion. 
Besides, I also wanted to use its save features which an upscaler won't help with, and I want an all in one system for my random retro playing.


----------

