nesdev.org

Wii got a wii recently, and it finally dawned on me that Nintendo is acquiring licenses to dozens and dozens of old games that we are all familiar with in one form or another. Do you think that this new source of revenue for Nintendo will cause them to become more aggressive towards traditional ROM/emulation activity?

NES Virtual console games uses the "pirated" iNES format.

It's too late for Nintendo to do anything. Don't worry about it. Besides Nintendo probably owes VC to the emulation scene since it seems to me that VC wouldn't exist if it weren't for the unofficial emulation community.

Bregalad wrote:NES Virtual console games uses the "pirated" iNES format.

I've also seen Sega using the SMD format for Mega Drive games. It's a bit frustrating that these companies need to resort to the pirate versions of their own stuff.

What format would Nintendo use to describe a board suitable for emulating a game, if not the de facto standard? Recall that four licensed collections of classic NES games for GBA and DS used PocketNES and the iNES format.

tepples wrote:What format would Nintendo use to describe a board suitable for emulating a game, if not the de facto standard?

Had they developed their own emulator and dumped their own carts, ignoring the pirate scene, they would probably have come up with something else.

Recall that four licensed collections of classic NES games for GBA and DS used PocketNES and the iNES format.

Exactly. The big companies have done hardly anything in the process of bringing us old games legally. They use ROMs dumped by pirates and emulators developed by the community. And sadly, the final product is usually of lower quality than what we can get for free, as many of the official re-releases suffer from emulation issues.

I wonder if the current Wii hacking/homebrew community is trying to determine what emulator Nintendo put on the Wii. I suppose a lot of open source emulators out there are probably cross platform and could be compiled fairly easily for the platform. It'd be fun to find out which one they used (or maybe they modified it until they understood it and then wrote their own? or maybe they even lurk on this site! YIKES!...jk ). I wonder if the hacking community could try compiling various NES emulators themselves for the Wii, and then compare the binaries of the virtual console (wherever that resides, I have no idea) to their own compiled binaries. Would that even work or is that a little far fetched? (for example, I suppose object files could be linked in a wide variety of combinations (to produce the same code but with jumps and calls to different physical locations), but presumably a makefile that comes with an open source project wouldn't be changed much if at all ).

For all I can tell, the emulator in Virtual Console is probably a port of acNES, the emulator included in the first Animal Crossing game. I'd have to do another round of WiiSCU and buy Balloon Fight to see if it has the same audio bug.

ZomCoder wrote:... or maybe they even lurk on this site! YIKES!...jk )

They don't, at least from any IP address that I'm aware of as being that within NoA or NCoLtd's netblocks. On the other hand, there are anti-piracy/monitoring firms hired by top dogs such as Nintendo who often visit sites hosted here. I only review logs when I have reason to.

To date (1992-2009), we've only had 1 incident and it happened a few years ago (when we were with another co-location provider). Story time... again.

The company Ranger Online contacted our co-location provider (rather than us directly -- I'm still disappointed about that, since our contact details for our netblock were available via WHOIS) with a takedown notice for a very specific file on one of our sites, citing copyright violation. Our provider immediately sent the mail to me and required that it be addressed within 48 hours else risk having our network port shut off (justified, and also within contractual obligations).

The file in question was a 100% homebrewn ROM image. I can't remember what console it was for, but I'm fairly certain either the 2600 or the NES.

I personally responded to Ranger stating that we'd remove the file once we were told what the violation was. The purported violation was a image/graphic/logo used within the file (a ZIP that contained a ROM image). We complied, naturally, and I personally let the site owner know as well. He didn't have any problems with it, but was equally surprised. We both spent some time digging around the ROM image to see if we could figure out what the violation was. We never got confirmation of it, but based on deductive reasoning, the violation was probably an in-ROM animation of Pac-Man... that means Namco. :-)

Owners/maintainers of numerous hosted sites here have contacted me over the years about the legality of their content, specifically with regards to romhacks (usually Japanese-English translations). The rule of thumb is that the safest method is to put up IPS patches, and never the full ROM image. To date we've never had a single takedown notice for any IPS patches, including those within the vast database which The Whirlpool/Donut hosted for many years.

It's possible a company could cite copyright infringement even off of an IPS (particularly if the patch is very large and contains a very long, linear sequence of bytes that match that of the original ROM) but it's unlikely. And if someone did go that far, we'd comply with what they ask as long as a justified reason was provided -- I have no interest in going to court (I have done so, and it is incredibly stressful no matter if you're the plaintiff or defendant -- that's stress which I don't need, not to mention would probably give me another nervous breakdown...)

I think these are the guys who do some of the Wii emulators

http://www.mtwo.co.jp/

Not Nintendo apparently. In all likelihood they downloaded the ROMs illegally off the internet (given INES format) and then proceeded to get licenses once emulation was working. A company would have to go with a working product first you would think.

Not that it bothers me personally, but it is interesting really. Why do some get threatened with lawsuits by Nintendo and others get contracts to produce emulators?

koitsu wrote:

ZomCoder wrote: To date (1992-2009), we've only had 1 incident and it happened a few years ago (when we were with another co-location provider). Story time... again.

I probably should have asked this already since I've done it here, but does posting pictures of emulation of commercial ROMs stand hairs up on certain necks?

My guess is no, since I've seen other examples. Usually people with emulation troubles [SMB, Castlevania come to mind] posting a screenshot to be completely clear about what they're seeing that is wrong and to give people trying to help them as much as possible.

If screenshots meant trouble, half of the internet would be down by now... =)

NESICIDE wrote:I probably should have asked this already since I've done it here, but does posting pictures of emulation of commercial ROMs stand hairs up on certain necks?

I've never heard of it bothering anyone, including companies. Of course, it's a lot like posting screenshots of a non-public beta OS in circulation; certain interested parties will make note that said site/location has images of questionable nature, and those parties may start focusing more on that site than they did prior. I'm sounding paranoid, but I'm (personally) not.

Just food for thought. :-)

koitsu wrote:... We never got confirmation of it, but based on deductive reasoning, the violation was probably an in-ROM animation of Pac-Man... that means Namco. :-)

Still happening in present-day:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201007 ... 0430.shtml

namco is out of there minds