Source: https://x.com/NintendoCoLtd/status/1853972163033968794
This is Furukawa. At today's Corporate Management Policy Briefing, we announced that Nintendo Switch software will also be playable on the successor to Nintendo Switch. Nintendo Switch Online will be available on the successor to Nintendo Switch as well. Further information about the successor to Nintendo Switch, including its compatibility with Nintendo Switch, will be announced at a later date.
Also, what a day to be casually posting this haha
what you're against is piracy.
piracy of current gen games is what you're against. As a consumer I should have the right to purchase a game (software) and do whatever the fuck I want with it, if I want to emulate Tears of the Kingdom because it runs and looks better on my computer than on my switch I should be allowed to do so. I purchased the console and the game, they've received my business, they should no longer have a say with what I do with my stuff.
Nintendo themselves use emulators for their products, there is nothing inherently wrong with emulation.
you should, but you dont. you fail to realize nintendo games are licensed to us. You do not own any software you puchase through nintendo. Take a look at the last two sections of this page:
so no, you cant just run it on whatever you want to, legally speaking. I think you should be able to do whatever you want with software, but its never been this way.
This statement is misleading and a lie. Computer software encompass video games as part of the legal definition outlined in Galoob v. Nintendo in 1992, which Nintendo lost in court. They do not have a legal leg to stand on. If someone wants to make an archival copy of a game they own physically, they can legally. The terms backup and archival are not interchangeable from a legal stance and Nintendo intentionally uses misleading language when answering the question.
Since we are going to take a deep dive on this, I attempted to read a Wikipedia article on this court case. I stopped reading after the second sentence since the top of the wikipedia article does not support your claim, at all.
from wiki:
the game genie did not create a new copy of a video game, an important distinction. what is a ROM if its not a new, permanent file and what does this court case have to do with my previous statement?
I was responding to the statement found currently on Nintendo’s website, the question Nintendo states, “But can’t I make a backup copy if I own the video game?” which you posted.
Nintendo makes the claim that making an archival copy of a physical game you own is not legal because video games do not fall under computer software,
“There is some misinformation on the Internet regarding this backup/archival exception. This is a very narrow limitation that extends to computer software.”
According to the court case I referenced, it in fact does just that. This court case clearly spells out that video games do fall under computer software and that they are subject to all of legal rights that go with it, your right to archive your physical copy of your game just like any other computer software, but this does not extend to making “backups” which Nintendo uses interchangeably with the term archive.
In legal terms backups are intended for short term storage and readily usable. An archive is intended with the purpose of long term storage and preservation of the software. Nintendo conflates the two and claims both are illegal, this is the problem. Not the subject of the court case mentioned, the court case I referenced is only to reinforce that the court recognized that video games fall under computer software and that § 117 of The Copyright Act of 1980 do give you that right. Here is a link to that section of the law.
gotcha, thanks for clearing that up