Metroid Dread, Emulation, and Journalism
NOTE: The following is not an endorsement of piracy, as if it were, it would violate Medium’s terms of service. This is a response to discussions around several topics, which includes emulation, piracy, and media preservation.
ADDITIONAL NOTE: The original Kotaku article was edited as I typed this out. For sources to a quote I make in the article, I refer you to the article via the WayBackMachine.
On the 9th of October, Kotaku published an article detailing that, despite Metroid Dread only being released one day prior, the teams behind two different Nintendo Switch emulators have worked to ensure that it could run exactly the way it would on native Switch hardware. In fact, according to the Kotaku article, it can actually run at higher settings through the emulator than the physical console is capable of running. Emulation is important, yet often thankless work. Large teams of passionate programmers and testers, who are more often than not working for free, ensuring that, even when the physical hardware inevitably begins to deteriorate and fail, the games that are near and dear to many players remain accessible.
The work is performed in a legally gray area. According to the case, Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Bleem, LLC, emulators are legal. In fact, you can sell emulators. It becomes complicated legally, when the conversation turns to ‘ROMs’ which is a copy of data from a cartridge or disc, and while some emulators can utilize the actual game cartridge or disc, it’s much more common for ROMs to be used to run games. The downloading and distribution of ROMs from websites is legally considered piracy. However, the act of making your own ROM for personal use from the discs and cartridges you own has not been litigated enough for anyone to say for sure if it is legal or not.
All of this is really background information when it comes to the current debate regarding this. Nintendo has a large number of dedicated fans and defenders, as many people have quite a notable sentimental attachment to this gaming giant, often referencing how large a part Nintendo consoles and franchises played in their childhood. This, unfortunately, causes them to turn a blind eye to a lot of their more questionable business practices. This is something I don’t think anyone can completely fault them for, as what they are doing is very human. When you’re personally invested in something, you find it easier to ignore faults. Some of these faults include suing an Arizona couple for over 12 million dollars for running a ROM site that never gave them anywhere near that amount of money, shutting down a Super Smash Bros. Melee tournament using unofficial hardware to allow for online play to keep everyone safe in the middle of a pandemic, a general hostility towards fan content or preservation of any kind, and countless other things. These dedicated fans fairly often will defend Nintendo’s actions in these situations.
From this information, it must be no surprise that these Nintendo fans are attacking the Kotaku article. I feel this must be due at least partially to the fact that the Metroid series goes long periods without any installments, and many believe that Nintendo, being a large corporation and therefore profit-focused, would gladly delay or cancel any other Metroid games in development if the sales for Metroid Dread perform less than favorably. Many individuals are stating that there is a difference between emulating a game that is no longer sold and a game that has just been released, putting forth the idea that emulation is a morally correct action when it is the only means to access a product, and is a moral failing when the game is readily available. However, some would argue there is no difference. Nintendo would have the legal ability to press the same charges, whether you downloaded a ROM of Metroid Dread, or Friday the 13th for the NES. Current President of Valve Corporation, Gabe Newell, said in 2011, “The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It’s by giving those people a service that’s better than what they’re receiving from the pirates.” It could be argued that Kotaku pointing out that the game has the potential to run better on an emulator than native hardware is a statement that the individuals that fans are branding as ‘pirates’ are providing a better service than Nintendo themselves, and therefore hurting the sales of this franchise. However, there is a small issue with this line of thinking.
The idea that piracy hurts sales is patently untrue.
A study commissioned by the EU in 2013 found that, “With the exception of recently released blockbusters, there is no evidence to support the idea that online copyright infringement displaces sales.” In fact, looking in the actual study, there’s a possibility that piracy may actually help game sales, as players who download a game and find they enjoy it will go out and purchase it. Now, it is important to note this is a single study, and it’s something that should be looked into more, and see if these results can be corroborated by other independent studies. However, I do not see that happening, as I do not believe the EU or any large private company would want to fund a study if there is a chance that it will confirm the results that piracy is actually good for sales. However, it is also important to note that while the EU withheld this study from being released for quite some time, two EU commissioners felt confident enough in its results to use it as a source in an academic paper regarding piracy’s impact on movie ticket sales.
I do wish to make a note, however. I disagree with this article being published, but for an entirely different reason. The act of publishing this article may have put the teams behind those Switch emulators on Nintendo’s radar. Often whenever fan games, mods, or anything related to Nintendo games but is not officially licensed by Nintendo is spotlighted in a major gaming publication, Nintendo often takes some form of legal action against the teams behind them. The author of the Kotaku article seems to know this, as they begin the article with the following: “Hey, real quick: If you are a Nintendo lawyer or employee, just like… don’t read this. It was a silly mistake. Ignore this blog. You can go now.” This is unfortunately just a natural dilemma of journalism. It is a journalistic responsibility to share pertinent information, but it is also a responsibility to minimize harm. This is a moral dilemma with no right answer. By sharing this information about the emulator, this may have the chance to complicate the lives of the people who worked on the emulator, but by that same token, if they never shared that information, nobody would know about the work that was put in and therefore there was no point in the team working that hard. Personally, I did not realize Switch emulation was already so advanced, so I think this article succeeded in what it needed to, but I’m still incredibly worried for the obviously talented people who made this work.
I face the same journalistic dilemma right now. I am fully aware Kotaku writers are constantly harassed, frequently doxxed, and threatened. I believe that the people who read this far will not take my criticism of a choice to publish an article as an invitation to harass them, and I hope I’m right to have that much faith. So, again, this wasn’t the Kotaku writers and editors being irresponsible, this is how journalism works. This is them weighing the possibilities and making a choice, and me wondering about the consequences of that choice.
In short, the emulation of Metroid Dread is not something you, as a consumer, need to worry about. A common mistake is to assume that every pirated copy of a piece of media is a lost sale, when it is also entirely likely that it would have simply not been purchased regardless. At this point, we do not truly know how piracy affects sales, as there have not been enough studies to reach any actual conclusion, but the one we have does seem to indicate that piracy may help the sales of the game.