prevent access to online services…that’s all they should be allowed to do. I don’t think I’d be able hold back on any company that decided what I do with MY hardware.
Those do typically come with the firmware update bundled in the cart.
Ironically this is a security measure because it also closes security loopholes and jailbreaking exploits.
Of course for that you need a cartridge that actually has something in it or whatever, but that’s the idea. You’re more likely to have a firmware update in a physical game than the full playable game.
No, I thought some game carts actually had system updates included on the cart that would install if your system was offline, for example. Looks like this is only for ps4/ps5 actually, though.
Nintendo has pulled some shady shit with this system release… While it’s possible for the manufacturer to put the games on the carts, and apparently some are… They have the ability to put just a key on the cart which allows you to download the game… But it still requires you to have the cart in your system to play it…
Yes that is a thing. The game cart basically acts as a digital key and you have to download the game. You also have to have the game cart in the system to play the downloaded game. Thankfully the boxes that have this are clearly labeled. One benefit of this is you can resell these games which you couldn’t previously do for any digital game. Not a fan of the practice and having plastic junk for what is essentially a digital game, though. Seems these virtual game carts are selling poorly so hopefully publishers will start using actual full games on carts going forward.
That wasn’t what I was referring to in my original comment, though.
You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with the foregoing restrictions Nintendo may render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part.
It seems hard to believe, but that’s the threat being made. Time will tell whether that’s bluster or if they’re really prepared to do so.
Nintendo has track record making threats that are not technically feasible, like if a PR/LAW person has written it with no knowledge on what technically really is possible. They just formulate it, so that they have the most possibilities later on the law site.
They would even include coming to and get the physical switch from you, if lawfully feasible. And they would only check later if the physical act is really feasible for them after.
He can’t play Yakuza 0 and puyo puyo tetris, because it can’t download the mandatory update, it can’t launch games. Technically it’s not bricked, but because it can’t launch legally purchased games, it’s effectively bricked.
Before it happens they put it in EULA which they did.
You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with the foregoing restrictions Nintendo may render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part.
You’re fixating on legalese boilerplate, I’m talking about what they’re actually doing.
Go back to the start of this conversation. OP said it should just be online bans, I said that it is, and you’re umackshuallying over what hasn’t actually happened.
The “legalese” explicitly stated in clear words that they have right to brick your device. If they had no intention of doing it they wouldn’t put that in.
This was added so once they brick it they can argue in court that you agreed to this when purchased your switch.
Because regardless of what some boilerplate legalese says, they are instead doing online bans. Fixating on a hypothetical when it’s the opposite of what’s actually happening borders on misinformation.
Scroll back up, this conversation started with the top comment saying it should just be online bans, I said that it is, and then y’all come at me saying it’s actually bricks. It’s online bans.
"You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with the foregoing restrictions Nintendo may render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part.”
So no, it’s not misinformation, Nintendo is straight up telling you legally that they can and will do this. This is not a hypothetical. They may not have done it yet but there is no uncertain terminology around their ability and willingness to do so. The fact that they can even threaten this in their EULA is a huge warning flag that everyone in this thread is correct to be upset about.
prevent access to online services…that’s all they should be allowed to do. I don’t think I’d be able hold back on any company that decided what I do with MY hardware.
If they going to brick the console they better refund the money.
They haven’t so far.
Online services includes firmware updates, and many new first party games require the newest firmware as of release to be installed
Those do typically come with the firmware update bundled in the cart.
Ironically this is a security measure because it also closes security loopholes and jailbreaking exploits.
Of course for that you need a cartridge that actually has something in it or whatever, but that’s the idea. You’re more likely to have a firmware update in a physical game than the full playable game.
Don’t they include the firmware updates on the game carts now?
You mean the game carts that only include the key to download the game?
No, I thought some game carts actually had system updates included on the cart that would install if your system was offline, for example. Looks like this is only for ps4/ps5 actually, though.
Nintendo has pulled some shady shit with this system release… While it’s possible for the manufacturer to put the games on the carts, and apparently some are… They have the ability to put just a key on the cart which allows you to download the game… But it still requires you to have the cart in your system to play it…
At least from my understanding…
Yes that is a thing. The game cart basically acts as a digital key and you have to download the game. You also have to have the game cart in the system to play the downloaded game. Thankfully the boxes that have this are clearly labeled. One benefit of this is you can resell these games which you couldn’t previously do for any digital game. Not a fan of the practice and having plastic junk for what is essentially a digital game, though. Seems these virtual game carts are selling poorly so hopefully publishers will start using actual full games on carts going forward.
That wasn’t what I was referring to in my original comment, though.
That is what they do. It’s an online ban, you can still use a banned console offline.
False, too many games require internet access for the first start to download the actual games
Banned console = you can only play 1st party games as almost all 3rd party devs ship empty cartridges with no game inside
The vast majority of games require being online at least once to run. This is enough of a loss if function to be considered unusable.
That is until the console is reset, at which point you need a valid account just to boot into the launcher.
Um… no?
I got into the home menu without even connecting to the wifi the first time.
Untrue, full console disabling is possible rendering it unusable for any content online or offline
They’ve only ever done online bans. There’s a lot of misinformation being spread around about bricks, but that isn’t what is happening.
It seems hard to believe, but that’s the threat being made. Time will tell whether that’s bluster or if they’re really prepared to do so.
Nintendo has track record making threats that are not technically feasible, like if a PR/LAW person has written it with no knowledge on what technically really is possible. They just formulate it, so that they have the most possibilities later on the law site.
They would even include coming to and get the physical switch from you, if lawfully feasible. And they would only check later if the physical act is really feasible for them after.
The fact that they are doing online bans instead is how we know.
But like I said, tell you what, if it happens then we can talk.
What they have done (so far) and what they are capable of doing are two entirely different things.
No one has had their console remotely bricked. If it happens, we can talk, but until then you’re just getting mad at imagined hypotheticals.
I found one of the many for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqFY3rICDWs at minute 7.15
He can’t play Yakuza 0 and puyo puyo tetris, because it can’t download the mandatory update, it can’t launch games. Technically it’s not bricked, but because it can’t launch legally purchased games, it’s effectively bricked.
It doesn’t even show the game icon on the screen!
That is a ban from online services. The word ‘brick’ has a specific meaning, this isn’t a brick.
If a device has a single purpose, which is playing games, and it can’t play such game, how it’s not a brick?
“It’s not a brick, it’s just a paperweight!”
Before it happens they put it in EULA which they did.
It couldn’t be any clearer.
You’re fixating on legalese boilerplate, I’m talking about what they’re actually doing.
Go back to the start of this conversation. OP said it should just be online bans, I said that it is, and you’re umackshuallying over what hasn’t actually happened.
The “legalese” explicitly stated in clear words that they have right to brick your device. If they had no intention of doing it they wouldn’t put that in.
This was added so once they brick it they can argue in court that you agreed to this when purchased your switch.
Worst argument ever.
Why wait for it to happen instead of acting proactively?
Why did they feel the need to implement that in A their legal speak and B partly acted on it (users of the MIG-cartridge got already hit by that).
Because they will at some point use the power. Why even risk that?
Because regardless of what some boilerplate legalese says, they are instead doing online bans. Fixating on a hypothetical when it’s the opposite of what’s actually happening borders on misinformation.
Scroll back up, this conversation started with the top comment saying it should just be online bans, I said that it is, and then y’all come at me saying it’s actually bricks. It’s online bans.
The actual text of the EULA states:
So no, it’s not misinformation, Nintendo is straight up telling you legally that they can and will do this. This is not a hypothetical. They may not have done it yet but there is no uncertain terminology around their ability and willingness to do so. The fact that they can even threaten this in their EULA is a huge warning flag that everyone in this thread is correct to be upset about.