Earlier this year, Citra, the 3DS emulator, was officially released for Android devices. If you thought that this was the biggest emulator news for Android this year, then you thought wrong. Enter Egg NS: a working Nintendo Switch emulator for Android.

​

While it was made publicly available a few days ago, Egg NS was developed over a period of two years by the NXTeam Studios according to the official website. The website also claims that the team is based in the U.S. but that remains to be confirmed especially considering the typos and Chinese texts on the website. The video above is one of the few that are available at the time of writing and have been posted on the official website but GBAtemp member @mattyxarope noted that YouTuber Taki Udon confirmed the existence of Egg NS on Discord (under #android-devices) and shared additional videos (some of which you can see here, here and here). Another YouTuber, ETA Prime, also said that it's a "a legit Switch emulator for Android" and shared a picture of the emulator running Hollow Knight with a video planned for a later release.

GBAtemp member @bylaws who worked on getting Android to run on the Switch noted that Egg NS "uses stolen code from yuzu for the GPU emulation".

According to the official website, Egg NS works on Snapdragon 855, 855+ and 865 phones, with a list of compatible phones available on their website. The catch is that the emulator works specifically with the $100 GameSir X2 controller which is available for preorder, since it apparently provides a code required to run the app. Upon closer look, the Egg NS logo bears some similarity to GameSir's Happy Chick app (the chick inside a cracked egg) which itself runs a number of emulators.

NXTeam Studios has also shared a games compatibility list, detailing the performance of each game they tested. Understandably, less graphically-demanding games like Cuphead and Enter The Gungeon seem to run better in Egg NS, with the exception of Pokemon Sword & Shield which is said to have a "perfect" compatibility.

​

Given that Egg NS is an emulator, not all games will run as well as on the native console. You might be better off with a Switch for now but it does show the potential of mobile phones and with time, Egg NS might improve and similar emulators with better performance might even pop up.

@mathew77 already started a discussion thread linked as the source material below. As for Egg NS' website and download links, you can find it from the YouTube videos but aren't shared in this post as they contain links to illegally-shared files.

SOURCE

 

[phreaksho]

I'll say this as many times as I need to, until it's as clear as purified water:

You can't "steal" code if it's open-source. That's like stealing those AOL CDs that grocery stores gave out for free. Or stealing the newspapers that say "free, take one."

Dude... I lived off those cds

 

[Jayro]

probably the same people that pirated ppsspp gold

True, lol. I've never paid for the gold one.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I dont agree with emulation being used for current gen systems,this is the reason why so many systems implement online DRM. If this was last gen its okay, but current hardware being emulated is just off putting.

It's pretty cool seeing current gen on modern hardware though, it's neat.

 

[Mythical]

I'll say this as many times as I need to, until it's as clear as purified water:

You can't "steal" code if it's open-source. That's like stealing those AOL CDs that grocery stores gave out for free. Or stealing the newspapers that say "free, take one."

You can if you don't follow the license

 

[Goku1992A]

You can if you don't follow the license

I'm sorry but I'm confused here I thought yuzu was open source. I guess I'll break it down as an example if Jimmy made lemonade and he gave his friend the recipe Jimmy cant be mad at his friend if his friend sells lemonade using Jimmy's recipe. This is why I don't get the licence thing because if it was a really big deal why be open sourced normally open source means anyone can improve the current emulator.

 

[Jayro]

You can if you don't follow the license

I'll never follow a software license. Software should be open and free for everyone.

 

[TheCasualties]

We could discuss if it's 'stealing' until the sun burns out. The main issue is that they didn't get permission and didn't follow the license agreement. (Granted I'm not one to follow a license agreement, Progress can come from anything)

We could make the same argument about piracy. It's not really piracy.. we don't plunder other ships, so it's not actually piracy. Who cares what the legal definition is. It's obviously code being used in a 'non-intended' way and that should be respected.

I would be totally ok with this if the emulator was open sourced, but this is clearly a ploy to sell these controllers. Using code someone else worked very hard to develop, and that should be acknowledged.

 

[the_randomizer]

Oh look at that, developers being entitled, greedy pricks who like to sell emulators they don't have the license to sell it with. Shocker. Hope people pirate their emulator instead of paying 100 dollars.

 

[PrincessLillie]

I'm sorry but I'm confused here I thought yuzu was open source. I guess I'll break it down as an example if Jimmy made lemonade and he gave his friend the recipe Jimmy cant be mad at his friend if his friend sells lemonade using Jimmy's recipe. This is why I don't get the licence thing because if it was a really big deal why be open sourced normally open source means anyone can improve the current emulator.

Here's the TL;DR: Most open-source software is bound to a license chosen by the developer of the software in question that denotes what you can and cannot do with it. In this case, Yuzu is licensed under the GNU General Public License v2.0, which allows developers to use the Yuzu code but requires that all projects using it link back to Yuzu, state their changes, and also be open-source and licensed under the GNU GPL v2.0. Not doing so violates the license and is illegal, giving the Yuzu developers full rights to sue you for illegal use of their licensed code. There's probably a lot I'm omitting here, but this is the nitty-gritty of it.

 

[LightBeam]

Well, no, it's not as simple as that and there are many who seek to reform copyright law of digital content exactly because copying (i.e. pirating) digital content is not the same as theft and therefore shouldn't be treated as such. The important distinction is that theft leaves the one being stolen from without the property that was stolen. Piracy leaves the property in tact. The damage that both cause are of different nature and different scale.
Let's take for example, the Merriam-Webster definition of theft:


English Law has the following (and some other things) to say:


Now, other law texts and other dictionaries may have different definitions, but you can see that the idea that the act of theft requires the property to be removed from the owner's possession is not completely obscure.

Alright. so I guess that the whole thing about piracy being theft is untrue then ? Is there any other word to describe this kind of steal ? I understand now that the need of "removing the property to the original owner" is not as obscure as I thought, but to me it feels like more an outdated definition as it's not really uncommon in law.
To me, that sounds more like an obsolete definition, which is not uncommon in law. Here there is no mention of theft of intellectual property or anything intangible, even in the "sub-categories" such as burglary or theft (hence the fact that I think this is an obsolete definition problem).

I don't know if they do the same in the United Kingdom and the United States, but in France when they do and there is a need to judge a case, they use what is jurisprudence for future cases, so even if there is no mention of theft of intangible property, a judge will have already ruled on this kind of problem and it will serve as an example. So basically if a judge has already ruled that it is possible to steal intangible, copyable property, and therefore in this case it is not necessary to have the will to deprive the possessor of it, in the end this will be more important than the definition itself.
In fact, the term used by the law and by other FBI-style organisations is simply "intellectual property theft" (there's a whole page on intellectual property theft and piracy on their website), so even if the term "theft" makes some people tick, at worst you just have to use the term "intellectual property theft" and then you're right in the middle of it. There is the possible theft of a logo with the same bird as another application, the use of the code outside its licence, the fact of not giving credit to the developers of the original code...

Tldr : it's intellectual property theft.

I'm sorry but I'm confused here I thought yuzu was open source. I guess I'll break it down as an example if Jimmy made lemonade and he gave his friend the recipe Jimmy cant be mad at his friend if his friend sells lemonade using Jimmy's recipe. This is why I don't get the licence thing because if it was a really big deal why be open sourced normally open source means anyone can improve the current emulator.

Because open source doesn't mean you can use in the absolute ways you want. You don't own any rights to it depending on the licences. There are licences that do require you to publish the "update" you made under the same licence, others don't have this need and can serve as some kind of "base" to proprietary solutions (I don't know if credit is still due tho). Open source doesn't mean it has no rules (but we're on the internet so people tend to not give a flying), in this case they are using some open source code, yes, but to respect the licence they also need to give credit to the original authors of the code and give the new source code, but neither is done.

 

[Halvorsen]

Well, no, it's not as simple as that and there are many who seek to reform copyright law of digital content exactly because copying (i.e. pirating) digital content is not the same as theft and therefore shouldn't be treated as such. The important distinction is that theft leaves the one being stolen from without the property that was stolen. Piracy leaves the property in tact. The damage that both cause are of different nature and different scale.
Let's take for example, the Merriam-Webster definition of theft:


English Law has the following (and some other things) to say:


Now, other law texts and other dictionaries may have different definitions, but you can see that the idea that the act of theft requires the property to be removed from the owner's possession is not completely obscure.

Ah yes, identity theft, the act of removing someone's original identity. Of course.

Non-physical items, such as intellectual data and ideas, can be stolen. By proxy, there is an entire act of Congress that tells you that you are wrong, called the DMCA. Moreover, a synonym for theft is "plagiarise". It is irrelevant that you're currently in a pedantic phase to look at a specific use to govern an entire word's usage.
It is, by definition, stolen.

dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own.

to take the property of another wrongfully

(transitive) To take illegally, or without the owner's permission, something owned by someone else.
(transitive, of ideas, words, music, a look, credit, etc.) To appropriate without giving credit or acknowledgement.
They stole my idea for a biodegradable, disposable garbage de-odorizer.

That doesn't mean that the idea is physically removed from the person's head, or a copy of Super Mario 64 DS is removed from Nintendo's physical ownership.

Amazing how you just pretend that this doesn't exist:

b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

as you even quoted it yourself. Oh, two of the above definitions also came from Merriam-Webster, and the others from different dictionaries entirely. The idea that the act of theft requires property to be removed is not valid in every case.

I'll never follow a software license. Software should be open and free for everyone.

Good thing laws don't care about your personal feelings. People should have the right to use, create, and distribute their property privately and publish it any way they choose, with protections for their work. I apologise if you disagree with what someone does with data which doesn't belong to you, but it's a good thing the choice is up to the software developer. If you want to create open source software, great! You'll be appreciated. If you would instead prefer to steal property, then don't be surprised if you have a case on your hands, or your software is just pulled from the hosting premises without notice.

 

[Mythical]

I'll never follow a software license. Software should be open and free for everyone.

The license of open source code on sites like github should be followed especially considering it is open source, free, and is usually made without compensation. Least you can do is follow the accompanying licenses

 

[StrayGuitarist]

Y'know, I'm not really surprised this started with Android devices, considering the Switch is more or less, an Android device running on an ARM processor. But hey, for those who don't have access to a Switch, this'll be pretty neat.. if it's not just some ploy to sell a $100 controller.

 

[Urbanshadow]

I'll say this as many times as I need to, until it's as clear as purified water:

You can't "steal" code if it's open-source. That's like stealing those AOL CDs that grocery stores gave out for free. Or stealing the newspapers that say "free, take one."

I don't know why this is so upvoted. Open source means the source is well... open for all to see. But open source software may still be sold and subject to copyright and copyleft infringements at the same time. I can still ask you for money for using my software and I can pursue anyone distributing it for free or asking money for it and not paying me a share. I can still check another open source projects for copyright infringement on my files. All of that with my project being open source.

That is because Open Source software is free as in free speech... but not as in free beer.

EDIT: For this particular case it means you may read the code, understand it as much as you possibly can and then write your own version of it. But you cannot just copy the files and pray for the best.

 

[ciaomao]

technically impressive, otherwise a rubbish concept

 

[GbaNober]

very expensive for just an emulator and we need a lot of testing fro every games.

 

[Kubas_inko]

I'll never follow a software license. Software should be open and free for everyone.

Of course. Why follow the rules of people who made it, when you can do whatever you want?
If it's for your own purpose, sure. Otherwise, see you in court

 

[Deleted User]

Ho man... Only for phones with snapdragon 855 or 865. I don't have such a powerful phone and I don't have money for a new one. What shall I do?

I have amazing idea. I would sell my switch and switch lite and then I would have enough money to buy a new phone so I could emulate switch games on it.

 

[matpower]

I'll never follow a software license. Software should be open and free for everyone.

I hope someone notices what you have been doing then, cuz you are one of the reasons people won't develop FOSS.

Guess I will take your MediCat distro, take the stolen software away and rebrand it as MediDog or something.

 

[Obveron]

I'd like to see switch games run natively on Nvidia Shield. Its the same chipset, so the potential would be full speed and perfect compatibility.

The SoC is practically the only thing they have in common + the Shield TV has 1gb of ram less than the Switch, so even if you did somehow get HOS running, you'd be limited to the few titles that don't use ~2gb or less.

A fair point about the RAM, cheers.

 

[chrisrlink]

"The website also claims that the team is based in the U.S."

Interestingly the Gamesir website is a .hk address

probably to make nintendo look stupid trying to file a lawsuit like "ok these guys are in the US let's sue them C&D letter gets return to sender with a note in chinese saying "ha ha fooled ya we're in china"