Nintendo can disable your Switch 2 for piracy in the U.S., but not in Europe, as confirmed by its EULA
10mon 1d ago by endlesstalk.org/u/kebab in games from en.as.com
considers altering entire network stack to trick a Switch 2 into thinking it never leaves EU soil
"Nah, I'll probably just not buy one. Fuck em."
Steam Deck, nothing more than Steam Deck...
I kind of want to pick one up, but i can't get a clear picture on if I should wait for a steam deck 2. From what I could find, they want to wait until there's enough of an upgrade to be worth it. At one point that suggested around 2025, but more recent stuff makes it seem like they're not even working on one, and other stuff hints that they are.
My cousins and I had this discussion and I'm like, "I dunno, I'm happy with it."
It's an indie/AA machine with 6th-gen retro perks. I'm good. That's my niche.
if I should wait for a steam deck 2
there will alaways be The Next Device. There are no real hints that it will release anytime soon.
So if you're interested in picking one up, now is a good of a time as any. You can also save some money by getting a refurbished 64GB model and upgrading the ssd yourself (takes just a couple minutes, a screwdriver and a thumbdrive with usb C to reinstall steamOS)
Get a Steam Deck OLED if you want a Steam Deck. Don't wait for a hypothetical next version. I have both the LCD and OLED, and while both are excellent, the OLED is a slight improvement in a few days (lighter, less bezel, 90hz instead of 60hz, obviously you get an OLED screen, and the CPU/GPU are a tiny, tiny bit beefier).
they have said they're not working on a version two because they don't feel the need to upgrade their hardware right now.
this is a low powered handheld gaming device. i use an LCD model as my daily gaming device and it kicks ass. i am unsure what upgrades are going to make it more "worth it" beyond what they've already done with the steam decks they are making and selling.
it works well and plays games right now, is my point.
i advise that you stop waiting to buy the next Shiny New Thing™️ and just get one if you want one. they're fun and life is short. enjoy yourself!
The best/worst part is that I was worried about battery life, and then I realized that I only have so much time as an adult and it doesn’t matter as much, for most games I’d want to play on it anyway.
A power bank for the exceptions. Not perfect but it’s okay.
I picked one up a few years ago and I love it. When I have the opportunity, it's so nice to chill in a waiting room and game instead of just doom scrolling.
Like the other poster said, I'm happy with the regular deck. Given there's no news about the 2nd one, I'd grab it and enjoy.
Its probably 3-5 years out, games aren't pushing hardware enough to justify it at this point.
Are there switch 2 emulators yet?
Switch 1 was feasible as its CPU was similar to the ones found on a $200 android tablet from 2018 so even a Chromebook can emulate that.
Switch 2 is comparable to a mid range modern gaming PC so we have to wait at least a decade for full speed emulation, if not more
Switch 2 GPU is similar in spec to a laptop RTX 2050 with more vram and better DLSS, I wouldn't say that's mid range gaming PC.
I'd say something decent will exist by the end of the decade if Nintendo can't stop development of emulators.
Seriously? It's been out for a few weeks, obviously there aren't any. And since Nintendo spent a lot of time and money to shut down most original Switch emulators I doubt we'll see S2 ones anytime soon. The increased S2 hardware power, also obviously, means you'd need a current or even future top-end PC to be able to handle the emulation.
Your comment is on the level of a 5-year-old asking if they can play Switch 2 on their phone or something. The answer is so incredibly obvious.
Pleasant. I suppose you never have questions about topics which are not your forte?
You are right about the processing power part but your comment is a bit too harsh considering the switch 2 has shared the same firmware with switch 1. And possibly very similar hardware
I am not a emulator dev. though. But I am speculating it would be easier to develop emulators for switch 2 compared to a brand new console (or compared to generational leaps of other consoles)
I get how it can be shocking that someone doesn't know as much as you about something that seems like common knowledge to you,
But tbh I'm like pretty certain the firmware is mostly the same, and it can't be that different if Switch 1 games can be upgraded to Switch 2 games. I doubt they went back and ported every single game to a new system if it wasn't easy to do so. So tbh I don't think its going to be that long for emulators to come out.
Steamy Decky
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.
Checking, downloading and installing irmware updates is the only thing that works on a banned console. Of course they are not allowing it because they're nice, just because they want to close eventual exploits
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.
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.
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:
"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.
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.
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?
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.
I found one of the many for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqFY3rICDWsat 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.
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.
Don't put words in my mouth. If you can't engage in good faith, there's no further discussion to be had.
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.
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.
That is until the console is reset, at which point you need a valid account just to boot into the launcher.
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.
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
better consumer protection says what
It says "Sign the Stop Destroying Videogames initiative if you can"
Still would be EU only.
Americans can't sign it, but the law would absolutely benefit American gamers.
If they have to do the legwork to leave the games in a playable state or pass it to the community, American gamers will be able to participate.
I have, and I have advocated for it everywhere.
Common European W
I secretly hope they screw up and brick all the switch 2 devices by uploading a bad update, and are forced to send replacement units, potentially crippling finances of their company.
Doubt it'll happen, and I'd feel bad for people and kids just wanting to enjoy some Mario and stuff on their weekends (which makes me sorta hope it doesn't happen at the same time), but... Nintendo needs to be hit very hard for their constant BS.
Or some “bad actor” will figure out a way to upload and push the bricking update. Forcing probably a recall and/or a costly class action. Maybe that will make them think about putting a kill switch on there in the first place.
In 2008, someone did the math. Just from 2 years of Wii sales, just the hardware, not the games, Nintendo could stay afloat for 163 years based on the ecconomy at the time.
So, lets adjust for inflation that we know it is today, and call it 110 years.
I don't think it's been 110 years since 2006. I could be wrong though. Covid screwed up everybodies internal clock.
Because in the US, you guys aren't really consumers (which would give you a status), you're merely walking and vaguely sentient (hopefully enough to click on "add to cart") wallets that the corporations pluck money from at every opportunity. This is your legally enforced reality.
We are not even people anymore.
Remember, when tech bros complain that Regulations Stifle Innovation, this is the kind of "innovation" they're talking about.
They want to innovate some more money out of your pockets.
They can have the moths over my cold dead body.
Because Banana!
But no, seriously, you can rage all you want about brands and corporations, but in cultural industries content is always king.
That's why you need regulation. You can't expect people to not play or watch cool stuff just because you're aware of and latched onto some particular moral, ethical or economical transgression. It's res publica to prevent the misbehavior so people don't have to have a stance on the extent of licensing for software/hardware combo services whenever their kid wants the cute gorilla game.
And yes, I do own a Switch 2.
Same for veganism. Taste is always king :/
It's not a terrible example. You can have delicious vegan food and you can have moral objections to the process of eating meat.
But if your reasoning is to enact some larger impact on climate or the practices of industrial meat production your own consumption habits are mostly irrelevant and you should focus on regulating those things instead.
The difference is that food isn't a licensed product. You can have very sustainable meat at home. You can't source sustainable Mario Kart.
Veganism is mostly about animal suffering. You cannot have meat at home without suffering, though I agree it can be very much less than current industrial scale of death.
As for mariokart, you could find or fund open source or ethical alternative developers
That's why the intent matters. If your concern with meat is that you're unwilling to inflict any suffering to an animal for food, then sure, that's independent from the wider effects. If you don't care about the larger impact beyond the small impact you have then by all means, your individual actions are all that matters.
But if your concern is systemic: how the meat industry functions, the climate impact, sustainability and so on, those things are a bit different. One, because you can bypass those issues and still eat animal products, on a personal level, but also because your not eating animal products doesn't have much of an impact at all in the overall issue.
The other thing is misunderstanding how products, brands and commerce in general work. I mean, if you can go and fund the, what? Fifty to a hundred million dollars Mario Kart World must have cost, by all means be my guest. I have a couple of pitches I may want to run by you.
But even in that scenario I'm afraid people don't particularly care for your open source knockoff. They want to play Mario Kart. Because it's Mario Kart. For some it's branding, for some it's because their friends are playing and they want to play together, for some it's nostalgia from their childhood, for some it's just that they don't care or know and that's the name they recognize.
You could fund half the gaming industry to be free and open source and people would still play Mario Kart.
So if you want Nintendo to not be dicks about it you need to regulate them, not put your money where your mouth is.
I don't disagree with you
No it is not.
Voting with your wallet does nothing. It's a neoliberal fiction capitalism uses to pretend regulation is unnecessary.
Voting with your wallet is dependent on everybody else with a wallet even knowing that there's something to vote about. Most people don't.
And voting with your wallet means you have a tiny wallet in a world with a TON of tiny wallets and a few very big, huge-ass humongous wallets, so your wallet vote doesn't count for crap compared with your one-vote-per-person vote, if you have access to one of those.
So no, voting with your wallet is barely useful at best, just the normal flow of the market ideally, entirely pointless at worst.
No, my suggestion is your buying or not buying stuff isn't a political action. Your political action is political action.
If you want to make sure it is not an option for hardware manufacturers to arbitrarily brick hardware you own for monetization or licensing issues what you need is a law that makes it illegal.
How you get that law is very dependent on where you live and what your political system is, so hey, I'm sorry if you need some sort of regime change before this becomes an option. But the "voting with your wallet" thing doesn't stop being a capitalist fiction just because you landed in a system where consumer protections have been written out of the lawbooks.
No, hold on, you get past the "other than get involved with politics" part very quickly there.
You can ABSOLUTELY get involved with politics. Go get involved with politics. Why are you not?
You can just vote, which is way more impactful than making purchasing decisions based on performatively affecting political involvement. That's getting involved with politics. If that doesn't do it then the next recourse isn't to spend money for posturing, it's to decide if you care enough about the issue to be activist about it or to break into the system in some capacity where you can implement change.
That's what you can do.
What you can't do is change how consumer protections work by spending money. That's not a thing. Nintendo has literal billions to spend marketing their products and the vast majority of people who will buy them as a result would not care much about the edge case you care about, would never encounter it and don't care enough about computing hardware to have an opinion in the first place You wanna change that? Go do politics.
This is why voting with your wallet pisses me off as a concept. It lets people say "but what else could I do besides getting into politics" and pretend they've done something by buying some shit over some other shit.
Nah, man, that's not how that works. You can do something or do nothing. Doing nothing is fine. You don't need to crusade for every single minor annoyance the legal system allows to enter the fringes of your life. You have no obligation to take on Apple or Nintendo or Google on any one specific crappy thing they decide to do.
But just to be clear, "voting with your wallet" is doing nothing. That's the choice you're making.
To be clear, I agree that you don't have to be into politics. Not caring enough is fine. Social media expressions of opinion are always black and white. AI is the end of the world, Nintendo's piracy stance is a war crime, Windows is the antichrist... You're allowed to be bummed out by any of those and not do anything about it because you're not bummed out enough. That's a refreshing degree of online moderation, if anything.
What I take issue with is confusing those sorts of market results with actual political action. A brand can decide something unpopular isn't worth pursuing for PR reasons, but they can also decide it IS worth it. To my knowledge the people I shared Netflix accounts with that were impacted by the location checks are still impacted by those. Your EA and Uber examples were barely impactful at all until regulators got into the mix, and regulators got into the mix hard about those issues. I invite you to go look up how both of them played out, because, man, is there a difference between how fast the companies reacted once there was someone in a public position going "hey, maybe we need to take a look at this".
Mistaking how a brand manages its public perception for effective political actions is dangerous. Letting corporations appease you through those means only serves to set up a bad precedent when those brands decide the time has come to squeeze and go hard on monetization. You need public institutions that are strong and vigilant enough to put some bite behind that public displeasure.
Can a boycott work? Sure. As a coordinated political action, the consumer-side equivalent of a strike. This takes just as much work and coordination as any other political activity.
But spending your money based on the outrage that reaches you through social media is not a functional way to generate change. It's just you being part of the mass of consumers brand manage with their messaging tools. You're a rounding error in a stat, part of the manipulation of the market that is built into every corporate action. When you do that you're a focus group data point, not a political actor.
We won't indeed. And that's why the neoliberal fantasy where the market self-regulates is bullshit.
We won't because our set of incentives isn't infinitely fluid to the point where every negative, hostile or illegitimate action is unprofitable. And we shouldn't have to, because there already is a mechanism to account for that fact, and it's the law.
We're not meant to judge our spending money in fungible commodities and entertainment based on political stances and larger considerations about long term convenience. We're not meant to weigh whether Nintendo has a right to disable our device remotely as part of the choice to play a cute racing game.
That's not the sphere where those choices belong. We've been told it is by neoliberal capitalists who don't want a government to tell them what they can and cannot do, so they keep insisting that they can be as crappy as they want because if they do something the public won't like they will "vote with their wallet" and the market will settle in the optimal spot of profit vs service. And if it doesn't a competitor will give people what they want and they'll buy that instead.
But that's a lie. It never worked that way, and it doesn't work anywhere close to that way in a global online oligarchy. You're meant to be able to buy whatever the hell you fancy because there is supposed to be a state regulating things to be safe, fair and protected when you engage in small commercial exchanges.
Because you need Office, Microsoft doesn't get to be the Antichrist. Because Netflix has the show everybody wants to watch it doesn't get to be the worst. The idea is those companies are supposed to be held to the level of being-the-worst-Antichrist we all deem minimally acceptable. Market forces can play within that space, and no further.
So you want Netlfix to not be the worst? Get a legislator to enforce it and watch Stranger Things to your heart's content. Because whether you like Stranger Things isn't supposed to be connected in any way to how Netflix conducts its business or how abusive it can be in the process of doing so.
Well, if noone cares, then your issue maybe just isn't that important.
I don't think that's the case, but we have to account for the possibility that your priorities just aren't particularly good priorities that other people care about.
I say I don't think that's the case because plenty of people do care about some of this stuff at least to some degree, or at least agree with it when asked.
People tend to be very down on the system or on politicians or on the ability or willingness to do anything in the common interest, and that's mostly part of the liberal lie as well. There's plenty to be done and plenty of people willing to do it. Those people need the power to do it, though. Sure, getting those people to where they need to be is hard, particularly with leftie types who will immediately get discouraged the moment their politicians aren't paragons of justice with a magic wand to fix every issue, but that's not the same as saying nobody cares.
I'd much rather have people get motivated than discouraged, and I don't need to win every fight, especially not right away. It'd rather move in the right direction than pout about it, even if the short term practical outcome is the same.
Look, I don't think anybody has an obligation towards constructive optimism.
I do ask that those who don't at least take care to not be destructive in their pessimism, or at least not to let those who are deliberately destructive to get in a position where they can be more destructive out of being despondent.
That's the thing, right? It may not be your turn to make things better, but if you are mindful in how you get out of the way somebody else may take things to the place where you can be. The part that worries me is how many people in that same spiral end up doing nothing when they get the chance, or so mad that they just want to tear things down without caring about what gets put in their place.
Yea, distribution and creation of art has to be separate. Only way I see against enshitification.
Like, there must be a choice between ad spreader datahoarder low price offer and premium low data no ad offer. There must be no monopoly over distribution of a specific art piece if it is no unique art form, like a hand drawn picture. (Like music, games, movies, series, trading card game, tabletop games, apps etc.)
Meaning, nintendo, netflix, apple, disnay and similar would have to offer distribution licenses according fair market rights and not limit those licenses to themself as self distributor.
At least, that is my opinion
Seriously! Just buy a used 3DS and hack it to run every game, emulator, etc. You can actually play DOS games and ScummVM games on it!
You can't play Donkey Kong Bananza
Because I have no intention of playing pirated games so I'm at no risk? Also I'm in the EU so I'd be fine regardless?
Which is fine until the piracy detection system has a false positive and you lose your Switch. Or you buy a second hand copy of a game the original owner made a copy of and continues to use and your switch gets bricked. I understand you're in the EU, but this kind of nonsense would definitely put me off a system that's already inordinately expensive.
To each their own. 👍 I hear your points. Surely the false positive should be refutable and able to be appealed. At least in the EU? 🙃
How does Nintendo know if someone makes a copy/dump of a physical game card?
If you're offline only, they can't afaik. In the case of online I'm lead to believe each individual cart is signed with a unique certificate so they can tell if that cart has been used in more than one console. If there's two instances of the same thing online at the same time it must be pirated.
In terms of reversal - I'll work from the premise we agree that it's unacceptable a customer loses access to a device they purchased and own because the company doesn't like it. But let's say it happens, how much hassle is it going to be to undo it? The console is bricked so it's presumably not running/able to go online? Do I need access to a PC to fix it? Do I need to send it off to Nintendo? Go to a game store?
Fwiw I like tinkering with consoles and devices - not necessarily because of piracy, I just like running weird software on them or making them do things they weren't meant to. It's not a common use case, but it's valid enough. Why should Nintendo control that.
how much hassle is it going to be to undo it?
Yeah, I bet it would be a bitch, no doubt.
I like tinkering with consoles and devices. […] Why should Nintendo control that.
Agree completely. They shouldn't.
Pirated games can be one or several of the following:
- a means of participating in a chosen culture when players can't afford/justify the price tag (one Nintendo game now costs the same as a week's worth of groceries for two people where I live)
- a form of archive because game publishers are notorious for killing games
- a form of backup because things happen to disks/cartridges
- a form of backup because servers go down
- a form of backup because not everyone's internet is reliable
- a means making the game more accessible by adding features (eg. the option of infinite lives/health for someone with muscular dystrophy)
- a form of protest over ever-increasing prices at the same time as ever-increasing layoffs, and ever-decreasing quality.
More directly relevant to you: the money you give Nintendo goes to their legal teams, to continue to find loopholes around the protections you have. They're the ones fighting the "Stop Killing Games" movement. Nintendo recently won a lawsuit against 1fichier in France for hosting emulated games. It has been marked as a "significant" win against any level of piracy in the EU. Nintendo is continually working to make sure that despite living in the EU, you won't be fine regardless. Your purchase directly funds that.
Maybe you have no intention of playing pirated games, but I hope you can appreciate that this is larger than just some teenager feeling powerful because they stole something?
Definitely a balance between funding their legal team and just wanting to play the games they put out, indeed. Currently I just want to play. We'll see if I take the high road later. Having too much fun with my kids at the moment though.
It's already happened that Nintendo remotely bricked a switch 2 because its owner bought an used game, but that game was dumped by its previous owner.
You also have no intention of buying 100% genuine original, but used, games?
I have no intention of buying used games, no. Never bought a used game for the original Switch either. I always buy my shit on launch because I want it fast. 🙂
Well, their shitty attitude towards consumers is why I won’t be getting a switch 2. So they can try bricking my asshole.
I'll do what I did with Switch games: download the emulated versions, barely play them, and seed them.
It's gonna be a shame if H4ckerM4n2015 may brick you Switch after loosing a game of Mario Kart.
Vulnerability for me, not for thee, right?
Remember when one guy got thousands of people banned from Call of Duty through exploiting the anti-cheat?
Nah, they can, but likely won't risk it w/European owners’ “rights.”
Change the headline a little bit.
"litigation" is not really how we usually talk about consumer's rights in Europe though. As the article clearly states:
the legal framework in Europe is much more protective of users. The corresponding laws understand that disabling a device for unauthorized access to software is an excessive and illegal measure.
It's the same with my American friends who does not understand that we have house loans, not mortgage. They still call it mortgage, but that's a completely different setup altogether!
Interesting, I've never heard about that.. What is the difference?
Edited, and quoted, because I can see European states arbitrarily litigate rights.
That's ... not how it works. If they did brick the consoles Europeans own they'd likely be breaking EU wide laws, which at the end would end up with the highest court in Europe - the EUCJ.
There's nothing arbitrarily about this. Our consumer protection laws are quite strong.
I believe Nintendo has been rewarded enough lobbying budget by folks who keep buying their 🚮
It’s less about rights and more about "consumer protection"
i stopped buying nintendo after wii. fuck them
yo ho, all hands, hoist the colors high,
heave ho, thieves and beggars, never shall we die.
The current management of nintendo will never figure it out. Piracy is the competition. It's not about getting the thing for free, it's about getting a better service. I'd buy mario 3 again (again) if that meant I'd get a rom I could run on my pc through FCEUX and enjoy all the features/enhancements that software offers. There's a handful of gamecube games available on switch2, but all of them are better through Dolphin than what official hardware can offer. Nintendo's refund policy is a joke. The eshop is unpleasant to use. Even ignoring all of that, the original switch only had a handful of actual first party titles, not enough to justify the console's price tag (and each those were merely ok, not enough to justify buying a console for one game).
sega sells their games on steam, and while I don't like the emulator they use I can at least say that I own a legal copy of sonic spinball.
Yet another reason for you peasants to throw down your pitch forks and accept the all mighty PC as your lord and savior.
I have had this long-term tendency in my gaming platforms where I alternate between PC and console as my primary long-term focus. For example, I remember that 2019 was almost nothing but VR gaming on my PC, but in more recent years I’ve used game pass on xbox to play all kinds of titles that I wouldn’t have otherwise.
My family uses the Xbox pretty regularly still, but I think now that I can use my Linux PC from the couch (without taking over the TV) it has broken me from caring about consoles. Like, I recognize the skill of Nintendo’s developers and I know I’m going to play the mario & kart releases eventually, but I haven’t even considered getting a switch 2. I know a family member has one, so likely my first time playing Mario Kart World will be at thanksgiving, lol.
I am also a fan of emulation. I’d be content if you only ever allowed me to play my NES, SNES, and PSX roms for the rest of my life. But since Nintendo’s business model means putting their beautifully designed games only on restricted/limited hardware, it’s a better way to play some of their newer stuff too.
Nintendo: "you bought our hardware, but we will brick it if you don't use it in exactly the way we like!"
Nintendo, you are supposed to be the good guy company remember?
Sadly the good guys retired and left the company with the rats.
I started pirating my Nintendo needs last generation and it runs so much better. Never buying from this anti-consumer company again.
This was the final straw for me, I'm done with Nintendo.
Hmm... How to use Switch 2 from behind a VPN so they think I am in Europe?
Gonna go ahead and guess; buy it in EU, turn on your vpn, connect, setup, register. Keep your vpn turned on perpetually. Maybe you'll be required to have a european bank issued card when you make purchases as well.
Or just get a steam deck, or another device you can install your own software on. This for me is a reason I never would get an iPhone. Although I don't have a ton of apps from outside the playstore I do want the option. Maybe my next phone will just be a Linux phone.
Cant you sideload on iPhone now after EU regulations? Or is it only 3rd party app stores?
It is only third party app stores. Each .ipa has to be allowed by apple
Wouldnt you need a european account as well?
I believe to have heard about regional accounts being a thing.
Some routers will let you configure a VPN onto a VLAN or SSID. Set that up and configure your Switch to use it and you're golden.
From the other comments, I am not sure if they understood my question or maybe they are assuming I know how VPNs normally work; could I just run the VPN on any PC on the network and it works for the whole network, or does the service need to run on the device itself? Because I can't do anything directly with my ISP managed router and my personal router is too old go support my gaming setup (it doesn't have WiFi 6 or 5GHz and I do VR).
I've never used a VPN before, so I really don't know. 😅
No. Well, you could, but it would be super complicated. You'd need a wired connection from the Switch to your PC and know how to configure a network bridge (kind of like putting a phone into hotspot mode), and your PC would need to be up (not sleeping) for it to work at all. You could do the same with a Raspberry Pi and a WiFi dongle, but again, you'd need to know how to configure it.
It would be much simpler to buy a decent router to put in front of your ISP router, or replace it altogether (you probably can, but I'd need to know more about your ISP to say for sure). I use a Mikrotik router without WiFi and a separate WiFi access point, and the Mikrotik router supports setting up a VPN. They're not all that expensive (maybe $100), though they can be a bit daunting to configure because they have a million features. Basically, it takes all traffic from connected devices and tunnels it through the VPN, so that computers aren't aware that it's connected to a VPN.
Basically, a VPN sends traffic over an encrypted channel somewhere else, kind of like a digital ethermet cable. Most applications aren't aware of it at all, and the VPN connection is only available on that computer. The only way to share a VPN connection is to connect the device to a machine with the VPN configured and tell that computer to send all traffic from that connection to the VPN.
I hope that makes sense, I'm happy to answer any questions.
I actually would know how to bridge the connection between the devices so that would be my choice, as it is the cheapest option.
Awesome, it should work. If the Switch doesn't allow setting the IP directly (no idea if it does), you may need to configure DHCP on your PC, and how complicated that is depends on what OS you're running, but it shouldn't take more than a couple hours to figure out if you're good at searching for stuff.
NetBird is your friend 😄
NintenDONT Boycott in Full Effect!
Nintendo has already disabled my ability to give a shit about Nintendo, let's see them disable my CFW 3DS babyyyyy
When they release a new system they will probably brick them anyway