News Nintendo bans Switch 2 owner after they played used Switch 1 games — decision eventually reversed after proving ‘innocence’

[micheal_15]

They're using apple's policy of "well buy a new one then", knowing most people won't sue. They're also hoping they can 'force' UK and EU customers to sue in Japan which would be prohibitively expensive.

They've literally bricked BRAND NEW devices, that were booting up for the first time. I suspect someone at Nintendo hates their policy and is trying to brick enough devices, that a formal government inspection occurs.

Am avoiding Switch 2 like the plague myself until there is a legal ruling set for the UK and EU to prevent Nintendo's behaviour. I could sue but it would be a lengthy hassle for a mid-range games device. There are better games on PC Handhelds now.

I wonder WHY they hate their customerbase so much. They've sued hundreds of families for 'copyright infringement' for having something vaguely-mario themed in the background. They regularly sue for bad reviews etc.

All of this and their games have long since lost their originality. It's basically mario 64/kart/zelda over and over again now. Nothing particularly "must have"

 

[dmylrea]

So what will happen when I rent used games from the library or from a friend?

Did you read in the article where it said the used game the player bought was actually a copy and therefore two identical ID's existed which Nintendo sees and bans the console. I would guess a Library isn't renting copies of games, they are renting originals.

 

[dmylrea]

That's ... not how it works in the US. 🤦‍♂️

You must not watch the news the last few months. It most definitely is how it works.

 

[dmylrea]

So what happens for parents with multiple switches for multiple kids, or kids who lend their games? Bans because it's been detected in multiple systems?

It must be needing to detect the ID's either simultaneously, or could be region-specific. If one console is in US and one is in India, that would be a flag that one is a copy.

 

[Tanakoi]

So what happens for parents with multiple switches for multiple kids, or kids who lend their games? Bans because it's been detected in multiple systems?

Absolutely nothing happens, because no simultaneous use is detected.

I haven't owned anything Nintendo in like 20yrs. Their anti consumer practices ensure that number will only go up.

It's not anti-consumer. It's anti-piracy. Stop gaslighting people by conflating the two. 99.99% of all consumers will never experience an issue like this.

It may have been easy to resolve but it is still wrong that it happened. Nintendo needs to chill.

You expect them to ignore piracy entirely? Ignoring the ethics entirely, do you honestly not realize that piracy hurts not simply the publisher, but you yourself? Unless you're a pirate, that is.

 

[Tanakoi]

You must not watch the news the last few months. It most definitely is how it works.

There were definitely some such cases in 2024 in the US, but nothing in the last few months.

 

[lmcnabney]

Nobody should be shocked what happens inside of a walled garden.

 

[Kidd N]

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. It wasn't simply a "used" game; it was a cartridge that had been altered and flagged for piracy. Facts matter.

False, the cartridge the subject had simply a used cartridge. Which means this could happen to someone who simply loaned out a game or one someone who checked out a switch game from a library.

Finally, from the standpoint of criminal copyright infringement, if you benefit in any manner from the piracy -- such as getting the original at a reduced price due to the presence of copies -- then it's still a criminal offense. Obviously this is quite difficult to prove except in extreme cases, but that doesn't change the underlying fact.

Are you arguing that a buyer receiving a game (that completely unknown to them, was copied by the previous owner) at used market price, is somehow benefiting and this guilty?

(If so, it's a reckless claim with wild implications to the used market.)

 

[robotoboy]

Absolutely nothing happens, because no simultaneous use is detected.


It's not anti-consumer. It's anti-piracy. Stop gaslighting people by conflating the two. 99.99% of all consumers will never experience an issue like this.


You expect them to ignore piracy entirely? Ignoring the ethics entirely, do you honestly not realize that piracy hurts not simply the publisher, but you yourself? Unless you're a pirate, that is.

I wish people understood how any of this worked beyond "piracy bad, and if you are against anything the corporation does - you are a pirate and by proxy evil!"

Allow me to explain something to you. Are you happy having your rights to the things you buy revoked by the company you bought them from? This devout crusade some people go on against "piracy" because they view all theft from any party as inherently evil is the literal definition of lawful evil.

It's an ethical and moral argument, being made purely from - law = morality.

No. Laws are made by people in power. Rich, or tyranical. By your definition the sheriff of nottingham was a saint, and Robin Hood was a big bad evil thief stealing from the kings rightful hoard.

Firstly - question! Who owns all the rights to Zelda? Or Animal Crossing? Who came up with those ideas?

Okay. Easy right? Nope.

One argument you could throw out is that the employees who made those idead and came up with them "signed away the rights" when they worked for Nintendo, and Nintendo pays them a salary.

Cool. Easy. Sure.

Who perpetually profits off that idea while the other imdividual is not paid royalties?

Is a publisher a person we should feel empathy for? Should we be okay with faceless corporate executives rigging laws and a system to exploit the creative ideas primarily for the top pay cut of a company that didn't make them?

Sure they bankroll stuff, but that's not creating something.

People like you only approach this subject from a purely legal standpoint instead of a philosophical one. You can cherry pick, and die on your hill but it doesn't change the ignorance of your argument, nor does it change the narrow view you have on ethics and morality.

Do you know what the terms "commodification of culture" and "private property is inherently theft" mean? Do you even understand the ever evolving concept of ethics? Or do you only approach all moral "conflicts" from a legal standpoint?

Is Russia a moral place, or even North Korea since all the bad things they do to their people are legal and protected under law. In Russia's case Putin is elected even. So you could argue the people chose this.

This hard defense of a faceless uncaring publisher is dumb.

The entire original point of capitalism was to exchange currency for goods and services... and companies increasingly lobby, and work to reduce this down to "services" as technology has begun to allow more and more granular control over those goods and services. They want to control what they sell you and call it temporary because they benefit MORE financially by doing so. If you don't own anything, the companies can do things to force or coerce you to buy new products, unethically even...

Sure but it IS legal... so I guess it's morally correct huh?

Or maybe all of this is way above your pay grade and you should stick to whatever you trained to do for a career. Laws are laws. Some good, some bad. They should never be inherently equated to ethical or moral questions. Philosophy and ethics is a very complex subject that requires ALL angles to be re-examined... you can't approach it with a narrow mind, else you are simply thinking in terms of black and white.

 

[VizzieTheViz]

That's ... not how it works in the US. 🤦‍♂️

In this case it seems to work like that: Nintendo just assumed guilt without any investigation and it was up to the gamer to prove his innocence.

Also I seem to recall people that weren’t white enough being put on planes without any due process to places they weren’t even from or had ever been.

It might still not work like that for YOU in the US yet, but it seems like it’s just a matter of time until it does.

 

[TerryLaze]

False, the cartridge the subject had simply a used cartridge. Which means this could happen to someone who simply loaned out a game or one someone who checked out a switch game from a library.

Yes if you loan out a game and are still able to play it yourself at the same time as the person you loaned it out to then this will also happen to you.

I wish people understood how any of this worked beyond "piracy bad, and if you are against anything the corporation does - you are a pirate and by proxy evil!"

I wish people would stop using any opportunity to do their anti-everything campaigning......

If you want to keep your personal rights all to your own then go to the mountains, find a nice cave and stay there, nobody is gonna mess with your rights there.

If you want to steal software then also, go ahead, but don't tell people that it's your right to steal because the other party is richer than you are.

 

[robotoboy]

Yes if you loan out a game and are still able to play it yourself at the same time as the person you loaned it out to then this will also happen to you.

I wish people would stop using any opportunity to do their anti-everything campaigning......

If you want to keep your personal rights all to your own then go to the mountains, find a nice cave and stay there, nobody is gonna mess with your rights there.

If you want to steal software then also, go ahead, but don't tell people that it's your right to steal because the other party is richer than you are.

Point easily made right here. You don't know jack all about this subject, nor are you capable of understanding nuance.

"You can cherry pick, and die on your hill but it doesn't change the ignorance of your argument, nor does it change the narrow view you have on ethics and morality."

I don't even need to retort to this.

 

[TerryLaze]

Point easily made right here. You don't know jack all about this subject, nor are you capable of understanding nuance.

"You can cherry pick, and die on your hill but it doesn't change the ignorance of your argument, nor does it change the narrow view you have on ethics and morality."

I don't even need to retort to this.

I know, I know, nobody understands you, such a tragedy, only you know how this world really works...

 

[JohnyFin]

Wait for more. Soon they will crack this piece of crap and then will be fun to read how they fight with crackers.

 

[Amdlova]

I Have my Day one switch one... Will trade it for a steam deck

 

[Jame5]

It seems like people are nitpicking the semantics of two systems playing the game simultaneously, which definitely would be an example of a copied/pirated game.

But the article says that Nintendo pulled their "ban first, expect the customer to fight later" maneuver simply because the game was registered to two systems at the same time.

If I pull the cartridge out of my system and insert it into my wife's system, it is now registered to two systems at the same time. Will Nintendo ban both of our acccounts now? Honestly the ability to easily swap cartridges between our switches is the main reason we focused on purchasing physical, not digital versions of games.

 

[COLGeek]

This thread has run its course. Closing now.