Why should that change the legality of the situation? Not to mention the Nintendo Switch is already quite old and emulator development (for the most part) hasn’t lagged much behind a consoles release. Getting paid for emulator development also isn’t illegal and I don’t see why it should be. You’re trying to conflate emulation and homebrew development with piracy which doesn’t seem fair (and doesn’t even require emulation, which you’ve illustrated with your Nintendo DS example).
If you see no problem when TOTK is playable on an emulator a few weeks before its official release, thanks to specific patches provided by some emulator developers behind a paywall, I cannot say anything else. For me it’s unethical to promote such thing when the console is still in activity.
I say « unethical » because even if it’s legal, it has the same negative impact as piracy, and that’s why I think it’s a problem. I have no problem with emulation when the console is « dead » (and I think it’s even necessary for preservation).
Why should that change the legality of the situation? Not to mention the Nintendo Switch is already quite old and emulator development (for the most part) hasn’t lagged much behind a consoles release. Getting paid for emulator development also isn’t illegal and I don’t see why it should be. You’re trying to conflate emulation and homebrew development with piracy which doesn’t seem fair (and doesn’t even require emulation, which you’ve illustrated with your Nintendo DS example).
If you see no problem when TOTK is playable on an emulator a few weeks before its official release, thanks to specific patches provided by some emulator developers behind a paywall, I cannot say anything else. For me it’s unethical to promote such thing when the console is still in activity.
I say « unethical » because even if it’s legal, it has the same negative impact as piracy, and that’s why I think it’s a problem. I have no problem with emulation when the console is « dead » (and I think it’s even necessary for preservation).