I think the designation of worst company for preservation is perfectly fitting. Sega still exists and they don't go around suing every site that hosts Sonic roms. Also the original Famicom is only 10 years older than the PS1, that's almost the age of the PS4 (sorry if that makes anyone feel old). And although Sony did try to sue Bleem for their emulator back in the day, they really haven't done anything of note since, even though they have plenty of legacy content that they try to sell on PSN. Nintendo really is just the worst for preservation.

They wouldnt. Its the fact of talking about playing pirated games would get them banned. Lots of people have talked about hacking their Switch to play emus etc and have not been banned...

Maybe if you visited some of them emu sites you would see how many hacked switchs the is and if you visited some of them other sites you would see how many pirates the switch hardware itself has.

But like i said its also why you dont hear about them Switch owners playing their pirated games or them posting much about their hacked switch as its the number one thing they will do on it is play pirate games. And trust me the is millions of switchs that can be hacked and has been hacked.

But if you want to believe that a million users paid for an expensive pc learned how to use an emu and all that just to play Zelda compared to the amount of Switch owners who downloaded it for their easy to hack switch be my guest and close your eyes and blame emus for ruining and spoiling your game...

IM sorry but i will never ever play a single player game on the switch when i can easy play them games in 4k looking fantastic on my pc. im sorry if you think this is bragging or if i hurt your feelings....

Completely biased take.

1. Sega hasn't been a platform owner for over a decade now, and when they used to they were more aggressive towards emulation and ROM sites than Nintendo. It's also not like Sega is completely free from attacking fan works. Why are you talking like Nintendo takes down every site that hosts Mario roms lol. All media propaganda, Nintendo doesn't go after ROM sites or fan works than ppl make it out to be mostly because it's just not worth the effort I would assume. For proof, there's still a ton of them out there.

2. What preservation does Sony do? What do other companies do for preservation that Nintendo doesn't? PSN doesn't even have all the games just like Switch Online, despite being more expensive. Steam doesn't have to deal with physical copies or different hardware structures. Microsoft doesn't even have games on top of the fact that they joined the industry significantly later. And you say "only 10 years" as if that 10 years is nothing. Bruh a decade in the tech space evolves quickly, especially during those times. 

3. All of the companies support something (I forgot) that prevents certain preservation methods. My point is, that Nintendo isn't the only one. Do you think any of these companies care about preserving or prioritizes it? Yeah, I think Nintendo is especially lacking in that field, but like I explained they don't have the same circumstances.

You have a right to make backup copies of your games, but do you have a right to make backup copies of decryption keys?

Doesn't the law state that helping people bypass copyright protection is illegal?

Even when copyright law permits your use of a work, it may be illegal to circumvent an access-control technology to make that use. From the university of Michigan...

17 U.S.C. § 1201 prohibits the circumvention of any technological measure that “effectively controls access” to a work that is protected under U.S. copyright law. For instance, it is generally illegal under this provision to circumvent the Content Scramble System that restricts access to in-copyright works on some DVDs. This is known as the anti-circumvention provision of section 1201. Section 1201 also prohibits trafficking in tools that circumvent effective access controls or circumvent controls that protect “a right of the copyright holder under this title.” That is known as the anti-trafficking provision.

Did Bleem allow people to play digital copies of games? Perhaps Bleem won their legal battle because people were simply using it to play games they already owned? Or perhaps Bleem allowed people to download and pirate games off the Internet too. Anybody know the history of Bleem well enough to answer this?

As far as I'm concerned Yuzu and MigSwitch devs are leeches that skirt around the grey areas of the law with no regard to the damage they cause.

Yeah, the topic has a lot of confusion seemingly coming from people who do not understand that preservation =/= accessibility.

Fact is Nintendo preserved practically anything they worked on at some point, even when it comes to stuff that solely used for promotional use or unique occasions. That's why when you get leaks like the Giga Nintendo leaks from years back, people had the opportunity to info early Space World demos and the original source code for games.

Even better, they also preserve 3rd party roms for other game companies lol. Square Enix had to ask them for the source code of Seiken Dentetsu 3 (Trials of Mana) because they purged their own archives.

The problem here, is they keep that preservation close to their chest and trickling most of it's accessibility for the players.

But hey, I do think it's both a problem of entitlement from gamers and the publishers to think nothing can lose itself to history at some point and that nothing is eternal.

Why the urge to point out this idea twice in this thread when we all know we're talking about profiting off emulating the work of others?

Reason for that is many people like myself talk about playing our legal owned games on PC as the is noting illegal about it. However if someone on this site or others like this start talking about playing pirete games on their hacked switches they will get banned. JUst saying maybe thats why you hear more about people playing games on an emu then you do them playing pirate games on hacked switches.

IT doesnt change the fact most if not all them one million copies where played on hacked switches since its the most easy console to hacked console since PSP and PS2.

You have a right to make backup copies of your games, but do you have a right to make backup copies of decryption keys?

Doesn't the law state that helping people bypass copyright protection is illegal?

Even when copyright law permits your use of a work, it may be illegal to circumvent an access-control technology to make that use. From the university of Michigan...

17 U.S.C. § 1201 prohibits the circumvention of any technological measure that “effectively controls access” to a work that is protected under U.S. copyright law. For instance, it is generally illegal under this provision to circumvent the Content Scramble System that restricts access to in-copyright works on some DVDs. This is known as the anti-circumvention provision of section 1201. Section 1201 also prohibits trafficking in tools that circumvent effective access controls or circumvent controls that protect “a right of the copyright holder under this title.” That is known as the anti-trafficking provision.

Did Bleem allow people to play digital copies of games? Perhaps Bleem won their legal battle because people were simply using it to play games they already owned? Or perhaps Bleem allowed people to download and pirate games off the Internet too. Anybody know the history of Bleem well enough to answer this?

As far as I'm concerned Yuzu and MigSwitch devs are leeches that skirt around the grey areas of the law with no regard to the damage they cause.

Profiting from a built emulator is fine. You just can't profit from ISO/ROM dumps or disseminate copyright material, it needs to be 100% your own work.

Contrary to popular belief, the chip architectures in these devices aren't "owned" by Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft, they are licensed from other manufacturers like IBM, ARM, AMD, nVidia etc'. - Those companies tend to want developers working and supporting their chips to grow their market.

In the case of Son, Nintendo and yes even Microsoft... They often leverage open-source software and often are required to "contribute" to the open source community to stay within the legal confines of using that software for commercial means...

It's not even just playing commercial games.

There is a massive community that builds games and software for these "environments" aka. Homebrew.

They are 100% legal... And often they are built in an emulated environment rather than on native hardware or a development kit.

That's the issue.

The world isn't the United States.

Many countries have laws and legal precedents that differ from the USA, Australia and New Zealand tend to lean heavily on the European models due to their westminister underpinnings... But in regards to Piracy and Backups have decided that it's perfectly legal to create backups of digital content under the fair-use act.

Many other countries don't even recognize piracy at all, especially parts of Asia and Latin America... Some countries emulators are completely illegal.