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.
What do you expect? Disable console first, then put things in EULA?
Why put something like this in EULA if there’s no intention of doing it, especially as they didn’t put it for EU where such practice is outright illegal?
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.
Because regardless of what some boilerplate legalese says, they are instead doing online bans.
Let me rewind to the start of this conversation.
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.
That is what they do. It’s an online ban, you can still use a banned console offline.
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!”
Some games might not be playable. But other games still are. Calling the system a paperweight is not accurate.
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.
OP said it should just be online bans, I said that it is, and you’re umackshuallying over what hasn’t actually happened.
If it ever happens, we can resume this conversation, but until then?
What do you expect? Disable console first, then put things in EULA?
Why put something like this in EULA if there’s no intention of doing it, especially as they didn’t put it for EU where such practice is outright illegal?
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.
Let me rewind to the start of this conversation.