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

[mynameisjuan]

29 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The only ''hacking'' i've been seeing on the Switch is porting stuff like Gameboy titles that Nintendo can't give two sh*ts enough about to make available on Switch or old console ports that aren't hurting the game publisher. And,well there is quite a difference in ''stealing'' even a newer $60 game and physically stealing a $250k Lamborghini.

Its not weather the fact it was a $60 game or a $250k car. The point was he was justifying "I dont have the money to buy it, so I am going to steal it"

[Evanair]

I'm actually quite surprised that Nintendo doesn't just brick the entire console. Same with Sony and Microsoft. In violating the EULA, you no longer have a right to use their OS and removing/disabling the software would be fully within their rights, especially so because the physical hardware would be untouched.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Evanair said:

I'm actually quite surprised that Nintendo doesn't just brick the entire console. Same with Sony and Microsoft. In violating the EULA, you no longer have a right to use their OS and removing/disabling the software would be fully within their rights, especially so because the physical hardware would be untouched.

Check my previous post: Microsoft and Sony don't need to: if you're banned from playing online your console might as well be bricked because people play the vast majority of popular games for the online portion, single player only or single player campaigns are an afterthought now.

[asus killer]

12 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

 

 

2) You're correct in saying that the vulnerabilities have been quickly patched on some cases. Those are secured basically through automatic updates however there's nothing stopping me from getting a console that was bypassed before said updates and just keeping it offline

 

3) You're correct in saying Nintendo has probably not invested as much as Sony and Microsoft, however before we where about mid-way through the previous generation (360 and PS3) these were both bypassed and routinely so. Why should have Nintendo spend a bunch of money to succeed where Microsoft and Sony were still failing after spending so much?

 

Silver lining to this point: Denuvo has been defeated. It has served a valuable purpose don't get me wrong but it was still bypassed.

 

 

if you keep it offline you can't play any game that comes after the update on a normal patchable exploit. Those aren't really relevant precisely because of that.

PS4 could already be hacked, they had an exploit, but Sony immediately patched it, so only consoles on a certain version of the firmware or lower could play pirated games. Who keeps a sealed  old PS4? who is going to invest so much time on creating a custom firmware for a console with a firmware almost no one has and that can only play old games?

That's why everyone prefers to hack Nintendo consoles, they don't care to patch

 

The good exploits are those that can't be patched by updates like the jtag, but those are harder to come buy because sony and MS are smarter. Nintendo isn't, and then there is no point in launching updates to patch it.

 

Denuvo is not that beat, they keep releasing new versions, AC:O took something like 4 months to be cracked, it's enough to secure sales.

 

You can have only single player games and don't let people play piracy, all you have to do is release a new update and the new games that only run on the new update. You can't play wolfenstein pirated on Xone or PS4

[Technous285]

4 minutes ago, Evanair said:

I'm actually quite surprised that Nintendo doesn't just brick the entire console. Same with Sony and Microsoft. In violating the EULA, you no longer have a right to use their OS and removing/disabling the software would be fully within their rights, especially so because the physical hardware would be untouched.

Bricking a console that's in the legal possession of the end user would technically be violating the whole First Sale Doctrine and stuff - whilst the device is in the console maker's control they can do with it what they want. Once it's been sold and ownership passed on to the end user then the console maker technically has no legal right to mess around with the device anymore.

They try to weasel-word and bullshit around in the EULA and shit about you're only "leasing" or "licensing" the device, but that shit doesn't fly well in countries with strong consumer-protection laws, and technically violates First Sale Doctrine with them trying to keep control of a device the end user has legally purchased the ownership rights of.

 

Like; Ford might want to limit your car to only being able to be filled at a Shell station or else the motor might be disabled, but legally once the car is in your ownership as part of the whole process of buying the ownership of it, they can take a long walk off a short pier if they wanted to force you to use Shell but instead you use BP or Caltex - they gave up rights of control of the vehicle once you purchased it.

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, asus killer said:

if you keep it offline you can't play any game that comes after the update on a normal patchable exploit. Those aren't really relevant precisely because of that.

PS4 could already be hacked, they had an exploit, but Sony immediately patched it, so only consoles on a certain version of the firmware or lower could play pirated games. Who keeps a sealed  old PS4? who is going to invest so much time on creating a custom firmware for a console with a firmware almost no one has and that can only play old games?

That's why everyone prefers to hack Nintendo consoles, they don't care to patch

 

The good exploits are those that can't be patched by updates like the jtag, but those are harder to come buy because sony and MS are smarter. Nintendo isn't, and then there is no point in launching updates to patch it.

 

Denuvo is not that beat, they keep releasing new versions, AC:O took something like 4 months to be cracked, it's enough to secure sales.

 

You can have only single player games and don't let people play piracy, all you have to do is release a new update and the new games that only run on the new update. You can't play wolfenstein pirated on Xone or PS4

Let's say I concede that.

 

Do you still think the relevance of online play hasn't had an impact?

 

Do you not think that the best possible method to combat piracy is always-online DRM?

[Evanair]

3 minutes ago, Technous285 said:

Bricking a console that's in the legal possession of the end user would technically be violating the whole First Sale Doctrine and stuff - whilst the device is in the console maker's control they can do with it what they want. Once it's been sold and ownership passed on to the end user then the console maker technically has no legal right to mess around with the device anymore.

They try to weasel-word and bullshit around in the EULA and shit about you're only "leasing" or "licensing" the device, but that shit doesn't fly well in countries with strong consumer-protection laws, and technically violates First Sale Doctrine with them trying to keep control of a device the end user has legally purchased the ownership rights of.

 

Like; Ford might want to limit your car to only being able to be filled at a Shell station or else the motor might be disabled, but legally once the car is in your ownership as part of the whole process of buying the ownership of it, they can take a long walk off a short pier if they wanted to force you to use Shell but instead you use BP or Caltex - they gave up rights of control of the vehicle once you purchased it.

Your analogy doesn't work. It would be more inline if you said that modifing your vehicle by hacking the computer to change tuning. People do, and it voids the warranty.

 

Tesla, for example, disables almost all features, if you have or modify a Tesla. This is more in line with what is going on with cosoles than gas. Your analogy would be more like, you have to use XYZ brand TVs for display.

[Technous285]

Just now, Evanair said:

Your analogy doesn't work. It would be more inline if you said that modifing your vehicle by hacking the computer to change tuning. People do, and it voids the warranty.

 

Tesla, for example, disables almost all features, if you have or modify a Tesla. This is more in line with what is going on with cosoles than gas. Your analogy would be more like, you have to use XYZ brand TVs for display.

I'm not even talking about modding a console before it gets bricked. Bricking a console AT ALL would be in violation of First Sale Doctrine - it doesn't matter one bit if the console was modded or unmodded: Once it's in the hands of the end user it is no longer the property of the console maker.

End of story.

[sof006]

Nothing wrong with this as long as people who aren't actually hacking their consoles get banned e.g. me I don't plan on hacking my console anytime soon, perhaps at end of life when Nintendo have moved onto bigger and better things but not now. Right now I am happy with my console the way it is.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Technous285 said:

I'm not even talking about modding a console before it gets bricked. Bricking a console AT ALL would be in violation of First Sale Doctrine - it doesn't matter one bit if the console was modded or unmodded: Once it's in the hands of the end user it is no longer the property of the console maker.

End of story.

This is another good reason for companies to be encouraging multiplayer only games by the way: I'm not saying they'll all go as far as EA saying "We're not doing anything offline anymore"  anytime soon, but slowly they will get there.

 

In fact if they manage to sufficiently address latency problems they'll stop selling powerful consoles altogether and just sell online gaming services you have to access remotely: Cloud gaming is the ultimate goal of gaming publishers imo.

[asus killer]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Let's say I concede that.

 

Do you still think the relevance of online play hasn't had an impact?

 

Do you not think that the best possible method to combat piracy is always-online DRM?

it depends, for a console the best method to stop piracy is to pay attention to what you are doing in the planning the console, the hardware phase , no possibility of major exploits, if plan badly and you have something like jtag or rgh you're done. Then all you have to do is to keep the updates coming for software exploits that are always going to happen.

 

For PC it's totally different, there is no way to secure the hardware, so you have to do things like Denuvo or always online DRM that screw legitimate buyers and probably cost a ton of money. So the best way is really to only have a multiplayer game, that's the only sure not crackable games, there are some games for PC no one even cares about cracking like star wars battlefront because they are online only.

 

But even without an internet connecting Nintendo could avoid all this, just had to force the updates through a cd, dvd or whatever in order to play the games. They are just really bad at this, and always become the weakest link to hackers. They don't prefer to hack nintendo, it's just easier.

[Thaldor]

15 minutes ago, asus killer said:

Denuvo is not that beat, they keep releasing new versions, AC:O took something like 4 months to be cracked, it's enough to secure sales.

AC:O was cracked in the end because of Denuvo. AC:O didn't use Denuvo, but VMProtect+Denuvo and IIRC Ubisoft patched something and Denuvo went to some default settings and crackers were able to use that to crack the VMProtect and the whole game. Denuvo itself, as it is, is already out dated and crackable in days, but layering it with something like VMProtect makes it hard to crack, but apparently hard to maintenance at the same time.

 

I don't really care about the piracy discussion, but while it is probably the biggest reason for this ban wave, I think (by the sources available) account scale banning is over the top action. Banning the modded console is ok and understandable, but banning the account on the modded console is too much. It's like killing a fly with a bazooka and possibly affects on so many levels that it starts to be very severe punishment and the chances of that hitting on someone else than the real modder is just huge.

 

Think if Microsoft did that. You used modded Xbox360/One and Microsoft banned your Microsoft account that had your Win10 connected. Not only did you loose your console but also every single Microsoft linked device and data for modding your Xbox.

 

At least for now we only have one source that says unmodded Switch was banned because Nintendo had banned their modded Switch. Creditability is a huge question, but still that lingers around. There's also no mentions how far that ban has affected and for now it seems that only Switches, but for other there should be someone who has modded Switch which was now banned and something like the New 3DS. Hopefully Nintendo didn't go that far.

[suicidalfranco]

In before cfw setting that let's the modded switch appear as an untampered one to N's servers

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

When you read the first few comments and people make outrageous comparisons to crashing cars into people while drunk...

Spoiler

I'm just gonna leave.

[asus killer]

38 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

 

 

Think if Microsoft did that. You used modded Xbox360/One and Microsoft banned your Microsoft account that had your Win10 connected. Not only did you loose your console but also every single Microsoft linked device and data for modding your Xbox.

 

At least for now we only have one source that says unmodded Switch was banned because Nintendo had banned their modded Switch. Creditability is a huge question, but still that lingers around. There's also no mentions how far that ban has affected and for now it seems that only Switches, but for other there should be someone who has modded Switch which was now banned and something like the New 3DS. Hopefully Nintendo didn't go that far.

not to state the obvious but if you're doing something like this don't use your primary account.

I'm not sure but doesn't steam do that, don't they ban the account if you're using piracy?

[Thaldor]

6 minutes ago, asus killer said:

not to state the obvious but if you're doing something like this don't use your primary account.

I'm not sure but doesn't steam do that, don't they ban the account if you're using piracy?

Any sane person wouldn't, but any sane person doesn't go online with their modded console for the same reason.

 

Piracy and Steam are kind of odd subject. Steam really doesn't care where the game you add to it as non-steam game came from and to really pirate in Steam you would need to hack the hell out of Steam itself. And as far as I know if you get banned in Steam you cannot buy, gift or trade games, activate CD-keys or play online on VAC servers and you are locked out of Steam Community. So, you can still install, update and play the games you already have (with VAC ban of course). And what I know that is the most severe punishment in Steam, what I have heard there is also full Steam account ban, but that is reserved for Valve employees that breach their NDA or other things like that which are then on the whole new level of illegality.

[TetraSky]

They went online with a hacked console, that's just asking for trouble.
When you hack/pirate something, NEVER go online with it unless you know for certain that it won't call home and log your info. And if you do regardless.... don't be stupid enough to use your main account and preferably use a VPN to change your IP.