News After just 12 days, Nintendo is already nuking Switch 2 consoles for players caught using Mig Flash — popular cartridge allows Switch 1 games on th...

[John Nemesh]

It should have happened a long time ago and it still hasn't happened and it probably won't. People are gobbling up the Switch 2 and initial reports are that it has outsold the original Switch by a fair amount with a much higher price tag.

Nintendo is very protective of their IP's for good reasons. They still make incredible games for a wide audience. I own a Switch and Switch 2 and have no problem adhering to Nintendo's EULA.

Remember...the WiiU sold out at launch too. I have no doubt that there is high demand for the thing RIGHT NOW...130+ million switch 1 consoles sold, and plenty of people in that group are ready for an upgrade.

HOWEVER, whether this thing has the mass market appeal of the Switch 1 remains to be seen, and a lot of reviewers are comparing it to the PS5 Pro (which is not good)...minimal upgrade for a HUGE cost increase, both in software and hardware.

We will see.

 

[fdmillion]

You know what nobody seems to be considering but I thought of pretty soon after hearing of this?

Nintendo's practice here actually opens the door to a malicious denial of service attack. And not quite in the way you might think...

Picture this:

You're the new kid at school. It's the day after your birthday and you're sitting outside during recess playing your shiny new Switch 2. Another kid comes by and says "oooh, dude that's cool, mind if I see?" Wanting to make friends, you say "sure! It's pretty cool" and hand it over.

The other kid deftly slips a MIG Switch into your Switch 2 without you noticing. He tries to launch a game from the MIG Switch card. Whether it succeeds or not isn't the issue. He plays the part, exploring a few of your games and saying "thanks a lot man, that's super awesome! See you around", handing you the Switch back.

That evening, or maybe a week later, you suddenly get an Error 2124-4508. You can't play online with your friends. You can't download the new game key card based game your parents just bought you. If you try contacting Nintendo, they'll mumble something about piracy and illegal game stealing and tell you to screw yourself - it's your word against theirs. ("Of course you're gonna say it wasn't you, you don't think we've heard that one before kid?")

Since we know that the console is tracking cart usage even when offline, and that bans can occur even if you were offline at the time the MIG was inserted, this poor kid suddenly finds his console banned from Nintendo. Permanently.

Scale this up to a gaming meet-up. Somehow go around and get a MIG into everyone's (or even a few people's) Switch 2's without them noticing. Or maybe you're the jealous partner who doesn't like how often your partner games, so while they're sleeping you sneak a MIG into their Switch 2. I'm sure you can imagine other scenarios where this might occur.

Since all it seems to take is inserting a MIG (and maybe launching/trying to launch a game from it) and with how aggressive Nintendo seems to be being about this, it definitely feels like a huge vulnerability. And I'm honestly surprised nobody's mentioned it.

 

[SyCoREAPER]

If they had it their way and wouldnt get sued into oblivion, Nintendo would just brick the whole device.

That said, I always wondered. What happens to console bans and the A-Holes who trade or sell it to GameStop and the next unlucky person buys it? A different Nintendo account and IP won't make a difference and contacting Nintendo would be a pointless exercise.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

Remember...the WiiU sold out at launch too. I have no doubt that there is high demand for the thing RIGHT NOW...130+ million switch 1 consoles sold, and plenty of people in that group are ready for an upgrade.

HOWEVER, whether this thing has the mass market appeal of the Switch 1 remains to be seen, and a lot of reviewers are comparing it to the PS5 Pro (which is not good)...minimal upgrade for a HUGE cost increase, both in software and hardware.

We will see.

Sure the Switch 2 could flame out but I don't see it. The WiiU which I still have one failed for other reasons and one of the reasons was the GamePad. It was one of those, either you love it or hate it. I had a neutral opinion of it. The performance bump of the Switch 2 is worth the purchase price as the games already on offer look way better than the OG Switch. Fast Fusion a $14 game looks incredible in 4K.

The Switch 1 was insanely popular so much so that Nintendo tossed out the "let's do something totally different again" to "let's not kill our Golden Goose.

Pretty much everything is the same between the Switch 1 and Switch 2, even the eShop pretty much looks the same. The settings menu looks the same and they even relaxed game ownership where one person can own the game but a 2nd person can play the same game with you without owning the game. I don't see the higher price of the Switch 2 holding people back from a purchase, unless future tariffs double or triple the price of the console.

 

[SyCoREAPER]

That said they easily could have been pro-gamer and made the Switch 1 perform better with an upgraded dock that essentially is an eGPU. Something like a Switch 1.5, not quite a 2 so that people would still upgrade but those that can't can have a better experience at least for their Switch 1 games.

Nintendo is on my poop-list for destroying the gaming landscape with these prices for games and accessory hardware.

 

[curian1286]

They have.
They considered that they don't get any money from a second hand sale.

Yeah, but they will lose the money gained from purchases on the console, while further souring their reputation regarding their practices.

 

[circadia]

Games can easily eat up 16gb these days. I have seen 16gb + usage on my system, and I only play WoW.

I don't know... I tried out more modern games like COD: Warzone, Control, Ghostrunner (2), etc. but I have never seen them exceeding 16GB+ RAM on my laptop with just 16GB of RAM.

 

[circadia]

Still more worth it than a Steam deck. Steam is pretty much a paper weight.
There is a reason most people dont have one

Nintendo shill?
and about the "most people" thing.... the same also applies to consoles in general.

 

[TerryLaze]

Yeah, but they will lose the money gained from purchases on the console, while further souring their reputation regarding their practices.

You think so, and maybe they will, but maybe that is still less money lost than that of the second hand market.
Also they have the, by far, strongest first party IP that people can't play anywhere else.
Just because there are a lot of people here that don't care much about nintendo games doesn't mean that the ones that do care will somehow be soured.

I don't know... I tried out more modern games like COD: Warzone, Control, Ghostrunner (2), etc. but I have never seen them exceeding 16GB+ RAM on my laptop with just 16GB of RAM.

Windows and by extension games adopt to the amount of available ram to a certain degree, just because they stay below your available RAM doesn't mean that they can't use more when more is available.

I don't know if, and how much, less RAM affects the actual performance though.

 

[KingKaze]

How nice of them to do it inside of the return window for the console. Just return/exchange and that is a problem for the store who will most likely just send it back to Nintendo and get a refund on that unit, got to love consumer rights.

 

[TerryLaze]

How nice of them to do it inside of the return window for the console. Just return/exchange and that is a problem for the store who will most likely just send it back to Nintendo and get a refund on that unit, got to love consumer rights.

Yeah no, nintendo can refuse sending them a new one or compensating them when they decide so.
Also stores do not need to accept a return of something that you broke.

 

[fivebarpipes]

No on Windows, but it's a 20yr old game. Modern titles are way more demanding than WoW, so I see 0 reason they can't hit or exceed 16gb, in a Linux environment.

There's your problem. Good thing the steam deck doesnt run windows then. Yes, games CAN use more than 16gb on Linux. Do they? Sure, some do. But 99% of them, no.

Vanilla WoW is a 20 year old game. WoW itself is a bloated game that's been updated for 20 years. Which are you playing on windows? Original WoW had a minimum ram requirement of 256 MB of ram on windows 98-XP . . . Pretty sure a 20 year old game has 20 year old game specs. Youre not playing a 20 year old game.

 

[franzkafka]

Still a poor business practice. The majority of consumers who have made this mistake are not going to spend the money on another switch 2 any time soon, and as a result, are not going to also spend the money on the new games they otherwise would have purchased. It's simply not a good long term business plan.

 

[John Nemesh]

It should have happened a long time ago and it still hasn't happened and it probably won't. People are gobbling up the Switch 2 and initial reports are that it has outsold the original Switch by a fair amount with a much higher price tag.

Nintendo is very protective of their IP's for good reasons. They still make incredible games for a wide audience. I own a Switch and Switch 2 and have no problem adhering to Nintendo's EULA.

The issue isn't whether individual users are OK with their EULA. The FACT is that they are in violation of EXISTING LAW!

It's not OK to just unilaterally decide that they can brick your console. In the US at least, it's perfectly acceptable to modify hardware that YOU BOUGHT, regardless of whether a corporation likes it or not.

 

[TerryLaze]

The issue isn't whether individual users are OK with their EULA. The FACT is that they are in violation of EXISTING LAW!

It's not OK to just unilaterally decide that they can brick your console. In the US at least, it's perfectly acceptable to modify hardware that YOU BOUGHT, regardless of whether a corporation likes it or not.

You have to link to the relevant law if you are making statements like that.

it's perfectly acceptable to modify hardware that YOU BOUGHT, regardless of whether a corporation likes it or not.

Sure you can put stickers on it, that's a mod, but if you change it in a way that makes it illegal then no law will allow that.
You can't buy household supplies and then mod them into explosives and say that the law is ok with that because you did buy the supplies.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

The issue isn't whether individual users are OK with their EULA. The FACT is that they are in violation of EXISTING LAW!

It's not OK to just unilaterally decide that they can brick your console. In the US at least, it's perfectly acceptable to modify hardware that YOU BOUGHT, regardless of whether a corporation likes it or not.

But the issue first and foremost is that such end users are in violation of Nintendo's terms of service. Any attempt at trying to use applicable laws will be met by Nintendo's Legal Teams who feel confident they will be victorious and I have no reason not to believe that.

Hardware and its use is defined by the platform holder. If they set rules on how it should or shouldn't be used then the end user either needs to decide whether they accept or reject those terms. If a user accepts any terms then they are bound by them.

Sure it's perfectly OK to use the hardware as you see fit. You can smash it with a hammer, throw it against the wall, run pirated software or Homebrew software.

When you want to use it as a Nintendo gaming device in their ecosystem then it is no longer OK to do as an end user pleases. The platform holder has set terms on how their device needs to operate and function to be accepted into their ecosystem.

Supposedly, Nintendo is not the only platform holder who has issued a threat that they can Brick a device. Sony and Microsoft have issued similar threats. So far it is not common but restrictive services tend to be very common when breaking the platform holders terms.

 

[TerryLaze]

But the issue first and foremost is that such end users are in violation of Nintendo's terms of service. Any attempt at trying to use applicable laws will be met by Nintendo's Legal Teams who feel confident they will be victorious and I have no reason not to believe that.

Hardware and its use is defined by the platform holder. If they set rules on how it should or shouldn't be used then the end user either needs to decide whether they accept or reject those terms. If a user accepts any terms then they are bound by them.

Sure it's perfectly OK to use the hardware as you see fit. You can smash it with a hammer, throw it against the wall, run pirated software or Homebrew software.

When you want to use it as a Nintendo gaming device in their ecosystem then it is no longer OK to do as an end user pleases. The platform holder has set terms on how their device needs to operate and function to be accepted into their ecosystem.

Supposedly, Nintendo is not the only platform holder who has issued a threat that they can Brick a device. Sony and Microsoft have issued similar threats. So far it is not common but restrictive services tend to be very common when breaking the platform holders terms.

Eh, just because the platform holder says something doesn't make it legal.
Epic just won against apple for something that apple decided for their own private (apple only) platform...
The warranty void sticker has been declared to mean nothing, in the US at least.
EULAs can be illegal if they are too much against user rights.

For this current case with the switch 2 we just don't know yet.
If any organization thinks that it's too extreme they will go to curt over it and we will find out.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

Eh, just because the platform holder says something doesn't make it legal.
Epic just won against apple for something that apple decided for their own private (apple only) platform...
The warranty void sticker has been declared to mean nothing, in the US at least.
EULAs can be illegal if they are too much against user rights.

For this current case with the switch 2 we just don't know yet.
If any organization thinks that it's too extreme they will go to curt over it and we will find out.

That really is not the issue whether it is legal or illegal. What many here are wanting is their cake and eating it too. They want to do as they please with devices that are functioning outside of what Nintendo will accept and Nintendo accepting devices that function within their acceptable window.

When a device is operating or altered in a way that no longer is acceptable to the platform holder, they don't want those devices that can have access to their online store or payments system. That can put the platform holder at risk.

 

[John Nemesh]

But the issue first and foremost is that such end users are in violation of Nintendo's terms of service. Any attempt at trying to use applicable laws will be met by Nintendo's Legal Teams who feel confident they will be victorious and I have no reason not to believe that.

Hardware and its use is defined by the platform holder. If they set rules on how it should or shouldn't be used then the end user either needs to decide whether they accept or reject those terms. If a user accepts any terms then they are bound by them.

Sure it's perfectly OK to use the hardware as you see fit. You can smash it with a hammer, throw it against the wall, run pirated software or Homebrew software.

When you want to use it as a Nintendo gaming device in their ecosystem then it is no longer OK to do as an end user pleases. The platform holder has set terms on how their device needs to operate and function to be accepted into their ecosystem.

Supposedly, Nintendo is not the only platform holder who has issued a threat that they can Brick a device. Sony and Microsoft have issued similar threats. So far it is not common but restrictive services tend to be very common when breaking the platform holders terms.

Newsflash buddy, US LAW supercedes a corporation's Terms of Service. Don't know if you knew that.

 

[John Nemesh]

That really is not the issue whether it is legal or illegal. What many here are wanting is their cake and eating it too. They want to do as they please with devices that are functioning outside of what Nintendo will accept and Nintendo accepting devices that function within their acceptable window.

When a device is operating or altered in a way that no longer is acceptable to the platform holder, they don't want those devices that can have access to their online store or payments system. That can put the platform holder at risk.

No, what we DEMAND is that when we are sold HARDWARE we get to use it in ANY way we damn well please! That's the LAW here, bub. It's not optional!

 

[leadbones]

So what? Do Sony and Microsoft allow piracy on their consoles? What did you expect? The Switch 2 is obviously selling well and most people are not using it to play pirated software. If you think you need to backup your physical Switch games and use a flash device to play them, and that if they don't want you to do that then they are tyrants, you're a liar and a moron.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

Newsflash buddy, US LAW supercedes a corporation's Terms of Service. Don't know if you knew that.

Then someone needs to try it. It will fail because once again, you can do whatever you want with the device you paid for but Nintendo has the right to block what they deem as a comprised unit. In offline mode do as you please or setup your own server. If you want to access Nintendo's online offerings then it cycles back to the Terms they have set.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

No, what we DEMAND is that when we are sold HARDWARE we get to use it in ANY way we damn well please! That's the LAW here, bub. It's not optional!

You can do that. No one is stopping you from using the "hardware" as you please. However Nintendo is the one who says you need to comply with their terms. If you don't, they have every right to stop any device that doesn't comply. There are Nintendo fan sites who offer free ROM's for devices that are no longer sold and games that have been out of print. Nintendo and their legal team shuts down those websites. They have won several cases for those who violate.

With all the data breaches and cyber threats, I personally don't want devices that are comprised where I have made purchases, neither does Nintendo. So I am glad they stop comprised devices from accessing their network. But you go right ahead and file a Lawsuit against Nintendo if you feel violated. I'll await your results.

 

[hotaru251]

They are simply banning them from being able to be played online. The console itself is still perfectly playable offline

exactly.
Nintendo LOVES their lawyers, but even they know they'd lose moment they actually tried to brick a users device. Same reason Switch 1 wasn't bricked (they totally had power to do so) & just banned devices online nintendo servers.
EU would eat them alive for attempting it as they have consumer protection laws for a reason. On console front i think they are for one being able to tinker w/ their devices all they want as they paid for it and own it.
Now do they require to be allowed to be given any services (i.e. nintendo/sony/ms/etc game servers) for it after? no but they sure as heck can legally tinker w/ their property.

Is Mario Kart World worth $80? nope.

depends.
if you (or your kids) spend most of their time on that title over next 5yrs it is.
MK8 would of been worth $80 back when launched given how much time people put into it (im not talking casuals who play a game, beat it, then go to next. I am talking people who actually like the game and put 500+ hrs into it)

Better argument for anti-80$ is the upcoming DK game...that is in no way going to be $80 worth as it wont have much replayability more than a few times max even by the msot dedicated fan.

 

[John Nemesh]

You can do that. No one is stopping you from using the "hardware" as you please. However Nintendo is the one who says you need to comply with their terms. If you don't, they have every right to stop any device that doesn't comply. There are Nintendo fan sites who offer free ROM's for devices that are no longer sold and games that have been out of print. Nintendo and their legal team shuts down those websites. They have won several cases for those who violate.

With all the data breaches and cyber threats, I personally don't want devices that are comprised where I have made purchases, neither does Nintendo. So I am glad they stop comprised devices from accessing their network. But you go right ahead and file a Lawsuit against Nintendo if you feel violated. I'll await your results.

Absolutely NO, they don't have the right to brick the hardware! That is the point. Yes, they can ban the modified console from connecting to their online services but they CAN NOT make the device inoperable. THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW. If you are confused, I suggest you read up on the subject.