• Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    22 hours ago

    What they have done (so far) and what they are capable of doing are two entirely different things.

    • missingno@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      21 hours ago

      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.

      • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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!

        • missingno@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          That is a ban from online services. The word ‘brick’ has a specific meaning, this isn’t a brick.

          • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            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!”

            • missingno@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Some games might not be playable. But other games still are. Calling the system a paperweight is not accurate.

              • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                17 minutes ago

                Your comment, paraphrased:

                Nintendo is Nintendo and they can never be wrong, I will defend them and ask for proof. Then deny any proof given.

                You asked proof of a brick, I showed you proof of a brick.

                Ah yes, sorry, it’s not a brick. Because it turns on and, because it doesn’t even show the icon of those legitimately purchased games that are unwrapped in front of the camera, you can go to settings, then you can, uh, toggle between dark mode and light mode. Yes, totally not a brick. People pay $450 for a game console not for playing games, just to stare at the empty screen.

                it's from switch 1 but it renders the idea

      • takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        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.

        It couldn’t be any clearer.

        • missingno@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          14 hours ago

          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.

          • takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            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.

            • missingno@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 hours ago

              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?

              • takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 hours ago

                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?

                • missingno@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  I’m talking about what has actually happened, you’re talking about what hasn’t happened.

                  Please review the top comments that started this conversation.

      • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        20 hours ago

        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?

        • missingno@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          18 hours ago

          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.

          • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            16 hours ago

            The actual text of the EULA states:

            "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.

            • missingno@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              15 hours ago

              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.