If true this is pretty hilarious/hypocritical. Ines header shows up in the super mario downloaded file via wii.
https://youtu.be/zR1uEwjx7VI
It's also plausible Nintendo has just adopted the Ines standard because it makes sense
The .NES file format (specifically, it's a 16-byte header) is public, invented by Marat Fayzullin, as the video discusses. Anything (commercial or open-source) can use the format; it's essentially public domain.
There is absolutely no way to prove in a court of law that Nintendo "downloaded a ROM from the Internet" and used it in their product. They may have dumped a cartridge themselves, or used a .bin they had laying around (we know for a fact they have an archive of all their game development details, which certainly includes source code) and stuck a .NES header on the front of it (maybe for ease of use of testing).
Marat's speculative statement, re: the head being detached from the body, is certainly a valid point (the bigger the company, the more likely this happens), but again, you can't just assume that's the case -- you have to prove it, and there's no actual way to prove it in this case.
If you think Nintendo doesn't run tons of their processes (esp. commercial release) through their Legal team for verification that everything was done by the book, you'd be kidding yourself. In other words: if they did use a ROM they found off the Internet, Legal knows the above, thus they're in the clear either way. They're not exactly a "stupid" company given their size and stature.
Hence, I don't see how this is hilarious or hypocritical.
It's been known for a while that Virtual Console uses the iNES container invented by the warez scene. It's just as likely that Nintendo dumped an authentic
Super Mario Bros. Game Pak and then wrapped it in an iNES header the same way anyone else would.
When I clicked the video, I heard "Did you know that the ROM matches", until I realized that it was "Did you know that the wrong mattress" from
a 3 minute and 41 second advertisement for Purple Mattress Protector, which keeps pausing on its own when it fails to start. I know you didn't intentionally rickroll me because the video title is "Did Nintendo download a Mario ROM and sell it back to us? - Here's A Thing", but I've been noticing that somehow my Firefox browser is having a hard time loading some YouTube ads lately. It depends more on the ad than on the video it's connected to: some ads consistently load on the first or second try, whereas other ads consistently take half a dozen clicks or more on the Play icon in the middle of the ad's poster image. Is Google trying to drive users toward YouTube Red by reducing the reliability of its ad-supported service?
I guess that if one of the Virtual Console games have "Disk Dude" in the header it could be a somewhat likely proof that it was downloaded. But since Nintendo are the copyright holders of these games I don't see how downloading would be illegal for them?
The legality of Nintendo downloading and reselling their own ROM seems like a minor concern and lesser point to me, and unfortunately it's ultimately a distraction.
Nintendo was prompted by, and somewhat leveraged, the existing emulation scene, turning it into a source of profit. Even that isn't wrong. The hypocrisy is that they had previously and continue to portray ("unauthorized") emulation as wholly illegitimate.
On the other hand, if it was the Bad Dump of Super Mario Bros that starts you at 0-1, that would be a complete other can of worms.
It hit social media again so here it is.
Frank Cifaldi said it as a joke to make a point. This guy doesn't seem to fully understand the joke.
I found the article this is based on:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017- ... back-to-usI think this is really just a critical misinterpretation of the letter from Marat.
I see, "There are minute differences between ROM dumps" no way! If they dumped the same mask ROMs correctly and added the header properly the file should be identical right?
tepples wrote:
I've been noticing that somehow my Firefox browser is having a hard time loading some YouTube ads lately. It depends more on the ad than on the video it's connected to: some ads consistently load on the first or second try, whereas other ads consistently take half a dozen clicks or more on the Play icon in the middle of the ad's poster image. Is Google trying to drive users toward YouTube Red by reducing the reliability of its ad-supported service?
AdBlock Plus and you don't need to bother with this anymore.
koitsu wrote:
There is absolutely no way to prove in a court of law that Nintendo "downloaded a ROM from the Internet" and used it in their product. They may have dumped a cartridge themselves [...] and stuck a .NES header on the front of it (maybe for ease of use of testing).
Sure, but I think it's 90% safe to say they downloaded a ROM. If they didn't then they added the iNES header themselves, and they had to download doccuments from what they consider illegitimate pirates in order to have information about how the iNES header works, so it's just as ironic/pathetic in my opinion.
Quote:
(we know for a fact they have an archive of all their game development details, which certainly includes source code)
Source please ?
I find it pretty ironic that Nintendo resorted to using a pirate file format in official releases, regardless of whether the ROM image itself comes from the web or their own archives. If I had to guess, I'd say this is because the emulator they use wasn't created in house from the ground up, but was instead based on something that already used iNES files.
Bregalad wrote:
Sure, but I think it's 90% safe to say they downloaded a ROM. If they didn't then they added the iNES header themselves, and they had to download doccuments from what they consider illegitimate pirates in order to have information about how the iNES header works, so it's just as ironic/pathetic in my opinion.
I covered this already: it doesn't matter
what they did -- there's simply no way to prove it either way. Legal knows this. I'm not going to rehash what I already said. You thinking it's 90% likely they downloaded the ROM changes absolutely nothing, as would it if someone felt the exact opposite.
Bregalad wrote:
Source please ?
There have been several news articles in the past few years where Nintendo has pulled out old design documents (originals) and went over them. The most recent one
was for Zelda, but I believe SMB1 was done sometime in the past as well. All this stuff gets stored in archives within companies (source + files go right along with CHR design, NT layouts, etc. -- stuff on paper, I mean);
here's an example (stop and think for a moment: if they've got the time and space to stockpile equipment, what makes you think they don't have the time and space to stockpile original source code, assembled results, development notes, etc.? Be practical). If you want me to *really* dig up some reference material, then I can ask Frank Cifaldi or Nathan Altice.
koitsu wrote:
if they've got the time and space to stockpile equipment, what makes you think they don't have the time and space to stockpile original source code, assembled results, development notes, etc.?
I don't remember exactly, but what about the NES version of "Donkey Kong" that included the fourth level? Didn't somebody say that the binary code looks like the new level was programmed and then hacked into the existing ROM? And that it didn't look like they simply took the original source code and implemented it from there?
DRW wrote:
I don't remember exactly, but what about the NES version of "Donkey Kong" that included the fourth level? Didn't somebody say that the binary code looks like the new level was programmed and then hacked into the existing ROM? And that it didn't look like they simply took the original source code and implemented it from there?
Just because you might have the source code lying around doesn't mean the best solution is to rebuild from scratch. In a lot of ways it's probably much more practical to just patch the existing ROM than to try to rebuild absolutely ancient source code. It's not like they would have had the 30 year old build environment they used to assemble it in the first place still up and running, and on top of that the existing code has 30 years of testing, and it's known to be quite stable-- might as well leave it where it is as much as you can. (Having the source code would likely make it easier to prepare a patch too, even if you're not assembling from it.)
tokumaru wrote:
I find it pretty ironic that Nintendo resorted to using a pirate file format in official releases, regardless of whether the ROM image itself comes from the web or their own archives. If I had to guess, I'd say this is because the emulator they use wasn't created in house from the ground up, but was instead based on something that already used iNES files.
I think it's hypocritical of them to do so given their "stance" on the emulation community, but it's completely practical. Basically every NES emulator in the world uses the iNES format, they probably should too.
On the topic of Nintendo still having source code and stuff for their old games, maybe they're different from other companies, but many times I've heard (usually from developers who are porting old games to new systems and are not given any code) about lost source code. The most recent examples I can think of are Capcom, because of the recent Mega Man II mobile fiasco and the cancelled Mega Man collection for GBA, and SEGA because of the Genesis games that received 3D updates for their 3DS ports but are actually emulated and the 3D effects are hacked in.
EDIT: Here's an article about the 3DS port of Sonic 1:
http://blogs.sega.com/2013/12/03/sega-3d-classics-–-3d-sonic-the-hedgehog-interview-with-developer-m2/
Apparently they did get some source code, but for the Sonic JAM (Saturn) port of the game.
I'm not finding anything about Capcom at the moment.
Nintendo is perfectly OK to use the .NES format as far as I am concerned. But if they contain a DiskDude header then it does indicate that Nintendo may be doing stuff that is illegal or is at least improper even if it is not illegal.
It can't possibly be illegal to download your own product! The illegal part is the guy putting up a ROM file for download, it's not like someone (much less Nintendo) needs to make a download to "seal the deal" and only from then on the activity is considered illegal. It's already illegal before the download, and people who do download are also doing something illegal, but these are completely separate acts. Nintendo isn't helping with anything illegal by downloading their own stuff.
tokumaru wrote:
It can't possibly be illegal to download your own product! The illegal part is the guy putting up a ROM file for download, it's not like someone (much less Nintendo) needs to make a download to "seal the deal" and only from then on the activity is considered illegal. It's already illegal before the download, and people who do download are also doing something illegal, but these are completely separate acts. Nintendo isn't helping with anything illegal by downloading their own stuff.
OK, but the presence of a "DiskDude" header still indicates that they have done something wrong (if it includes such a header, and I have no evidence that it does), even if what they have done is not illegal. Of course it does not really matter so much that it is wrong, since they are using them only in their own software.
zzo38 wrote:
the presence of a "DiskDude" header still indicates that they have done something wrong (if it includes such a header, and I have no evidence that it does)
It doesn't. It's a good clean dump with a correctly formed iNES header, indistinguishable from any other good dump with a correct iNES header.
...which was exactly Frank Cifaldi's point. He wasn't literally saying they downloaded it, he was just trying to point out that it wouldn't matter if they did, in a deliberately headline-catching way, in the context of a speech advocating the legitimacy and importance of emulators.
Here's a twitter thread where he clarified this in response to the article:
http://twitter.com/frankcifaldi/status/822186307338149888
So he wants people to know that ROM files are the 100% original code and data and not some kind of inaccurate reproduction.
The reason some people don't like emulation is because of the differences from real hardware (and nowdays modern flashcarts makes it very easy to use real hardware with downloaded ROM files), but not everyone understands that and somehow thinks the ROM itself is the inaccurate part I guess.
That or a perception of an "emulation for me, not for thee" attitude on Nintendo's legal pages.
EDIT: Let me clarify. The impression I get from YouTube comments is that Nintendo's use of a container format developed by the emulation scene, rather than designing its own container format, is hypocritical given its stance toward said scene.
If you want an instance where a ROM clearly
was downloaded from the internet, how about the iOS port of Streets of Rage 2?
The "released by..." bit? Now that's funny.
tepples wrote:
... Nintendo's use of a container format developed by the emulation scene, rather than designing its own container format, is hypocritical given its stance toward said scene.
That I agree. (This problem does not exist with GameBoy, however.) In my opinion this mean Nintendo's stance is bad, but their use of the iNES container format is OK in my opinion.
Revenant wrote:
If you want an instance where a ROM clearly was downloaded from the internet, how about the iOS port of Streets of Rage 2?
If whoever released the iOS port is actually named Mr. A (or maybe their surname starts with A), then what is written on the title screen isn't quite untrue.
[rhetorical]
What's more immoral: Nintendo using the iNES container for ROM images in Virtual Console, or Retrotainment using
NES Stripe Image format for update buffers in
The Curse of Possum Hollow?
[/rhetorical]
The former, of course.
Former: a specification using nybbles to specify approximately the bare-minimum of required information for an emulator to understand how to interpret the ROMs. It's very well-established and documented and only a few things don't work with it, generally not 1st-party material. This makes it the obvious choice.
latter: a specification for RLE encoding of PPU-RAM data; with two control bits: RLE and increment mode. The BIT instruction is an efficient way to read two (or three) control bits at once, dictating that they be in d6-7. Testing a third bit (or a second but different bit) requires an A-clobber.
The N bit is affected by loading a new tile into A. The V bit is not. This makes it so that one can write one loop for transferring RLE and non-RLE, using a BVS (or BVC) to skip the read-and-incrementing of read-location.
If one doesn't go for this optimization, then there're eight ways to encode, just which bit means what and whether to invert each.
I have a niggling recollectoin of some precedent or rule involving "the straightforward way of doing something not being copyrightable/patentable" but IANAL and can't remember.
If you're going to bring patents into this, probably should point out that the iNES format itself should be 20 years old by now.
I'm honestly fine with it, because to be fair, Nintendo technically created the original game and owns all the rights.