Nintendo moves to ban online access to all Switch devices owned by alleged "Hackers" (read: Anybody breaking Nintendo EULA)

[Dabombinable]

5 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

The analogy you made is totally different to this situation.

 

It's like you buy a graphics card and then tear off the warranty void if removed sticker just cos you want to see the PCB cos you're interested. Does that mean your warranty should be voided? No, since you did nothing wrong. 

The warranty void if removed sticker is illegal in at least the US though.....

[Bcat00]

1 hour ago, NoRomanBatmansAllowed said:

This seems a bit extreme though.

 

 

they can, cartridge still works. you just can't download games from the Eshop

[Yoinkerman]

I don't know how they'd check but if people are using homebrew to pirate games too bad get banned imo.

 

If using homebrew to mod paid for games to make custom levels n stuff, Nintendo can get bent imo.

[Beskamir]

Rather sad, homebrew on a switch made me interested in buying a switch.

[ravenshrike]

7 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

I put "Hackers" and not Hackers since 99% of people modding switches are not criminals or hackers.

True, technically they're crackers. I mean, if they buy the usb hardware to do it they're the short bus version of crackers, but they still qualify. Even if they're just using it for homebrew someone else wrote.

[asus killer]

most people using hacks on the switch are in it for the piracy not the mods. 

 

Nintendo as been the most hurt by piracy in the last couple of years, it's only natural they defend themselves. If someone just wants a "cool pocket-linux" there are other ways to do it, you don't specifically need a Switch. 

 

Xbox does it, Sony does it, good for Nintendo for at least trying to defend their consoles. Maybe this wouldn't be an issue if you have a best seller like Wii, but it is if you're struggling with the Switch.

 

Analogies with tv's and surfboards look cool but make no sense in this case. Nintendo needs to defend from piracy and good for them for doing it as i wouldn't like them going the Sega way. Just mood something else to play old games or whatever, is this really an issue even?

[Master Disaster]

5 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

The people who are comparing this to ludicrous things really have no idea what they're talking about. You're acting like this is a ban on people doing something illegal or wrong.

 

There is nothing illegal about modifying the software on a device. This is the Nintendo switch equivalent of rooting/jailbreaking your phone. It's a protected user right to run the software of your choosing on the hardware you buy.

 

People need to stop conflating hacking (the community that develops low level software modifications and compatibility software), with hacking (gaining illicit access to services and cracking), with hacking (cheating at a game with third party tools). Nintendo here is cracking down on the first, not the second two.

100% correct.

 

On the flip side though Nintendo also has the right to ban anyone they choose from their platform.

[Itereus]

I agree with Nintendo on this. They should be allowed to do what they want with their online platform.

 

According to the OP, they only block access to the online service, but still allow OS and existing games updates. They would probably be within their right to block OS and game updates if they detect a modified Switch.

 

As for the whole homebrew argument and about being allowed to do what you want with your console, you can. Just don't expect to be allowed onto Nintendo's online service with a modified console.

[Sniperfox47]

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

100% correct.

 

On the flip side though Nintendo also has the right to ban anyone they choose from their platform.

That's the real question though. Do they?

 

If running modified software on your device is a consumer right as part of right of first sale, does Nintendo have the right to deny you service on the basis of exerting that right?

 

A company can't always just willy nilly control who uses their platform. There are certain criteria on which you can't discriminate customers on, and while I don't think it's currently the case I don't feel you should be able to discriminate your service on the basis that a customer is using your product differently than you intended.

[HarryNyquist]

2 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

...I don't feel you should be able to discriminate your service on the basis that a customer is using your product differently than you intended.

Exactly. Imagine if Dell banned you from installing new software on a computer, or using the internet, because you ran an Ubuntu LiveCD once on a Dell PC.

 

The only saving grace is they say OS updates and Existing Game updates are still able to be downloaded, so unless the next hardware revision of the switch is going to drastically change the cartridge format, this doesn't really stop anything.

 

I honestly wouldn't put it past them to make a "NEW" Switch with "better" features or something, to encourage people away from the faulty hardware that caused such things to happen in the first place.

[Syntaxvgm]

8 minutes ago, HarryNyquist said:

Exactly. Imagine if Dell banned you from installing new software on a computer, or using the internet, because you ran an Ubuntu LiveCD once on a Dell PC.

 

The only saving grace is they say OS updates and Existing Game updates are still able to be downloaded, so unless the next hardware revision of the switch is going to drastically change the cartridge format, this doesn't really stop anything.

 

I honestly wouldn't put it past them to make a "NEW" Switch with "better" features or something, to encourage people away from the faulty hardware that caused such things to happen in the first place.

...how are epople singling out nintendo for this? Sony and MS do this ffs. This is normal. CFW can get you banned. Why would you expect nintendo to do this differently?

[Centurius]

2 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

That's the real question though. Do they?

 

If running modified software on your device is a consumer right as part of right of first sale, does Nintendo have the right to deny you service on the basis of exerting that right?

 

A company can't always just willy nilly control who uses their platform. There are certain criteria on which you can't discriminate customers on, and while I don't think it's currently the case I don't feel you should be able to discriminate your service on the basis that a customer is using your product differently than you intended.

Yes, there is no law preventing them from locking people out of a privately owned platform for violating a user agreement. That isn't discrimination, it is just contract law. If they actually completely bricked a device, a legal argument could be made but in this case no. Just because you feel something, it doesn't mean you are correct.

[HarryNyquist]

10 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

...how are epople singling out nintendo for this? Sony and MS do this ffs. This is normal. CFW can get you banned. Why would you expect nintendo to do this differently?

Just because Sony and MS do it doesn't make it more correct to do it.

[mynameisjuan]

26 minutes ago, HarryNyquist said:

Exactly. Imagine if Dell banned you from installing new software on a computer, or using the internet, because you ran an Ubuntu LiveCD once on a Dell PC.

 

The only saving grace is they say OS updates and Existing Game updates are still able to be downloaded, so unless the next hardware revision of the switch is going to drastically change the cartridge format, this doesn't really stop anything.

 

I honestly wouldn't put it past them to make a "NEW" Switch with "better" features or something, to encourage people away from the faulty hardware that caused such things to happen in the first place.

Nintendo banning for piracy is not even close to a comparison of Dell banning for a similar thing. 

 

The switch is a gaming console running Nintendo games. Thats it. So you pirate to steal games, no shit your device should be bricked. 

 

But you compared this to Dell, which sells 3rd party hardware and is built around installing what you want. Not the same at all

 

 

[Itereus]

29 minutes ago, HarryNyquist said:

Exactly. Imagine if Dell banned you from installing new software on a computer, or using the internet, because you ran an Ubuntu LiveCD once on a Dell PC.

 

The only saving grace is they say OS updates and Existing Game updates are still able to be downloaded, so unless the next hardware revision of the switch is going to drastically change the cartridge format, this doesn't really stop anything.

 

I honestly wouldn't put it past them to make a "NEW" Switch with "better" features or something, to encourage people away from the faulty hardware that caused such things to happen in the first place.

But this is not comparable to your example about Dell banning you.. this is more comparable to being banned from GoG, as you still get to keep your games and get updates for the OS from Nintendo.

 

However, reading the source cited in the video, it seems like it was a account ban, and not a device ban.

Quote

 Interestingly, Shiny Quagsire mentions that the specific console in question hasn't actually been hacked, potentially suggesting that Nintendo has tracked his user account from one Switch to another and has put a ban in place across the separate devices.

From http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/05/nintendo_bans_online_services_for_prominent_hackers_switch_console

 

[Misanthrope]

6 hours ago, asus killer said:

Nintendo as been the most hurt by piracy in the last couple of years, it's only natural they defend themselves. If someone just wants a "cool pocket-linux" there are other ways to do it, you don't specifically need a Switch.

Curious: How did you quantify that "the most" argument?

 

Such phrasing implies actual numbers to compare. And when we're talking "lost" sales to piracy gaming companies make wrong core assumptions from the get go so again: where are these numbers coming from?

 

Is there an accepted study on piracy that irrefutable shows causation (hint: not correlation) between piracy and weaker sales?

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I stole your car

You can stop right there: If I pirated your company's game, I did not stole your game. Because you can still sell original copies of said game.

 

Stealing implies not only that you get a thing but that the other person loses the ability to profit from said thing because you now have that thing.

 

The closer (although still incorrect) analogy would be counterfeiting a product, not stealing.

 

We have different types of crimes because they affect the victims differently: stop equating piracy to theft that's just not accurate.

 

 

[bcredeur97]

14 hours ago, Ohsnaps said:

This is Nintendo's cash cow and any company will protect it. Piracy will eventually happen (even if the bulk of people are against it). Hacks will happen and technically Nintendo is doing best by their customers. By providing a hacker less area for people who play by their rules. I have nothing against this.

this technically doesn't stop piracy from the sounds of it.

But it does prevent people from playing games online presumably.. so there's that.

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

I mean they're within their rights but that doesn't not make it a massive dick move. Man, fuck nintendo

[Thaldor]

47 minutes ago, Itereus said:

But this is not comparable to your example about Dell banning you.. this is more comparable to being banned from GoG, as you still get to keep your games and get updates for the OS from Nintendo.

 

However, reading the source cited in the video, it seems like it was a account ban, and not a device ban.

From http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/05/nintendo_bans_online_services_for_prominent_hackers_switch_console

 

 This is what also caught my eye. Nintendo went a step further and banned the account of the user and what I understood the "person" (as in they banned every account linked to that person who has had even one hacked device). Account wide ban is already quite bad, because it may also stop the user from using Nintendos services on their other devices linked to that account whether or not they are "hacked". But at least it seems accounts are being banned from using Nintendos Switch network capabilities, meaning if banned person went and bought a new Switch, didn't mod it anyway, used the same account, the Switch is banned.

 

This also kind of wakens a new question. What if a banned person used the banned account on a new Switch and sold it to someone. Would the device still be banned from the network even when it's unmodified, owned by a different person and used with a different unbanned account? If so, that would really be an overshot from Nintendo.

[asus killer]

35 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Curious: How did you quantify that "the most" argument?

 

Such phrasing implies actual numbers to compare. And when we're talking "lost" sales to piracy gaming companies make wrong core assumptions from the get go so again: where are these numbers coming from?

 

Is there an accepted study on piracy that irrefutable shows causation (hint: not correlation) between piracy and weaker sales?

like i said in the last couple of years:

there isn't any piracy on xbox one or PS4

PS3 was not the friendliest console for pirates.

All Nintendo consoles have been hacked and are a heaven for pirates. The Switch isn't there but of the 3 consoles is the not that is closer as usual. There's no need for independent studies just some knowledge of piracy.

 

Even PC had a long time without piracy on account of the Denuvo, Just Cause 3 took more than a year to be cracked.

[mynameisjuan]

22 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

You can stop right there: If I pirated your company's game, I did not stole your game. Because you can still sell original copies of said game.

 

Stealing implies not only that you get a thing but that the other person loses the ability to profit from said thing because you now have that thing.

 

The closer (although still incorrect) analogy would be counterfeiting a product, not stealing.

 

We have different types of crimes because they affect the victims differently: stop equating piracy to theft that's just not accurate.

 

 

 

 

God I hate that bullshit argument. Its fucking stealing no matter how you put it. People that pirate use dumb semantics to justify it. 

[AvocadosGuac]

Okay, i'm no lawyer, but i think we're forgetting a huge aspect here.

 

When you purchase a Nintendo Switch, you agree to their EULA. Now, i have NOT read their EULA, but I would almost bet that it says you cannot modify the software in any way.

 

By them doing this, its a dick move. I think we can all agree it's mostly like jailbreaking the iPhone (or rooting your android). Apples approach of stopping this, if minor, frequent software patches. Try to bring your Jailbroken iphone to an apple store? You'll be shamed. They wont even take your money to repair it. Nintendo said "Eh fuck it, ban em".

 

Does it make sense?

 

Well, yes and no. I'm not sure about the new generation of consoles, but do you guys remember system banning on the 360? It basically bricked your entire console on a hardware level. Now, let me get back to a more relevant platform, the ps2...

[Misanthrope]

21 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

You stole a license, but hey if I hacked your steam account and didn't give it back I guess I didn't steal anything from you since you can just buy them again.

By definition, you cannot steal a license. You can break a license or use a service without a License and those are legit crimes: I have no gripe about you or Nintendo calling people "criminals" because it is on the law books.

 

However I have a big issue with false equivalencies because they seek to make the issue seem bigger and worst than it really is. So a couple of points:

 

1) Nintendo can claim that they don't sell products but provide services through a license. But that doesn't makes it legal for them to do so: with a sufficiently rich and competent legal team you could tell Nintendo to fuck off, so to speak. If you give out a physical or digital good in exchange for money, it's a product, not a license.

 

Their legal case for licensing and not selling products falls apart when they also try to cover themselves with warranties: Nintendo and all gaming companies would like, very much to switch between treating their games as products and goods when it suits them for warranty claims then switch to calling them licenses when they want to stop people from modifying said products.

 

Good news is they can't have it both ways and the most logical and legally sound way to describe their business model is selling of physical and digital products.

 

2) The online part? That actually is a license agreement to a service. Notice that this is why this is very specifically targeted by all major companies: they cannot tell you 'Hey you're not entitled to modify your console!' because legally, you absolutely fucking are entitled to modify your console and run original and homebrew products as much as you'd like.

 

The only part that's actually not allowed is when you download a game you don't own but that's because of the game, not because you modified your console.

 

So the way around this is to entice online capabilities a lot as the core of your business so you can control your platform from user modifications. This has been historically great for Sony and Microsoft but Nintendo is as usual late to this party as most of it's core audience still obtains their products for the single player and co-opt experiences not the online one, but I digress.

 

3) Now that we're clear on what is actually allowed and not allowed we're back at my original point: Is Nintendo capable of showing 'We would have sold X amount of copies if it wasn't for pirated copies'?

 

Because this has never been shown to be the case simply because nobody has made an extensive study on this. This requires not only "how many downloads vs how many sales" because A download doesn't necessarily equals a sale. People have the option to download but that doesn't translate in having the means to actually buy a copy of the game if said option to download wasn't available. That's not even getting into competing products i.e. If I don't have the option to pirate games and I have to buy them 100% of the time would I care to buy 100% of the games I pirated?

 

The answer is an overwhelming No because people are willing to try games only if the value offered by said game is worth it for them. This is why Steam sales are really popular: a lot of people don't consider a game is worth the asking price at launch but once discounted, the value proposition of mediocre, short, buggy, etc. Games increases greatly.

 

So let us stop with this equation that companies that Nintendo put forward: 1 Download does not equal 1 lost sale. It never has been shown to equate anywhere near that.

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

 

 

God I hate that bullshit argument. Its fucking stealing no matter how you put it. People that pirate use dumb semantics to justify it. 

So should I call you a murderer if you ever hit somebody, even if accidentally?

 

Because hey it's fucking attempted murder no matter how you put it.