News Nintendo Switch 2 account bans continue — Content creator with over a million subs issues warning after buying an old copy of Bayo 3 on eBay

[Admin]

A Switch 2 owner has had their Nintendo console 'restricted' after installing a Switch game they bought on the used market.

Nintendo Switch 2 account bans continue — Content creator with over a million subs issues warning after buying an old copy of Bayo 3 on eBay : Read more

 

[endocine]

Steam Deck.

 

[-Fran-]

If you ignore the red flag being waved in front of your face, then it's on you, sorry.

Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are all really annoying when it comes to the "kill switch". It's been like that for a while now, so let's not go all surprised-pikachu-face now with these shenanigans.

Sure, love the games, but much like getting into some zealot/religious cult: you either follow the rules or you get out before you get consumed/killed by it.

Stop giving your money to Companies that treat you like trash. Come on.

Regards.

 

[chaos215bar2]

If you ignore the red flag being waved in front of your face, then it's on you, sorry.

The red flag saying "screw you, we might just ban you even if you buy a used game completely legally"?

Yeah, I see it and the message is loud and clear. Don't buy Nintendo products!

And also, maybe vote for politicians who actually care about consumer rights. How long do you think Nintendo will get away with this nonsense in the EU?

 

[bigdragon]

It's not acceptable to buy a brand new gaming console and then have to beg the company that made it to let you use it because you decided to run a secondhand/used game on it. Nintendo should not be allowed to operate in a "guilty until proven innocent" manner.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

No sympathy for Nintendo buyers.

 

[-Fran-]

The red flag saying "screw you, we might just ban you even if you buy a used game completely legally"?

Yeah, I see it and the message is loud and clear. Don't buy Nintendo products!

And also, maybe vote for politicians who actually care about consumer rights. How long do you think Nintendo will get away with this nonsense in the EU?

The Stop Killing Games initiative is the start point, for sure.

We all have to collectivelly keep an eye out and hope the EU does right by the consumer.

Regards.

 

[hotaru251]

there is like...2 games exclusive to switch 2 atm....and they arent worth the cost atm. (mario kart and DK)

also I have feeling the more that these bans from using 3rd party bought games there will eventually become a lawsuit as its a draconian thing to do to ban innocent people and force them to have to prove they are innocent & take up their time for soemthing that isnt their fault.

 

[SenVetis]

So if you put these cartridges into a different switch 2, they both get bricked?
So if I'm understanding this correctly, if person A installed a brand new cartridge, sold it online, person B installs it, we both get banned?
Yet, if I swap a DS game, I can trade with my friend for a game I haven't played yet?
Furthermore if my Switch 2 breaks with the original install data, I cannot use the same cartridge to reinstall that game to replace the broken switch 2 with a new one?
If I did try to install it, I'd get banned, then need to beg Nintendo to allow me to use my console again?
The account isn't tied to the game, but the roms are tied to the cartridges, while the DRM is tied to the console?
Where does that leave the account, only tied to the console?

This actively punishes physical games, and it's users.
Online purchased titles wouldn't ever have this issue, unless Nintendo purposely took away Access to them. I guess they've legally found a loophole to openly entice users to "forget" about trying to be unbanned.

 

[jlake3]

So if you put these cartridges into a different switch 2, they both get bricked?
So if I'm understanding this correctly, if person A installed a brand new cartridge, sold it online, person B installs it, we both get banned?
Yet, if I swap a DS game, I can trade with my friend for a game I haven't played yet?
Furthermore if my Switch 2 breaks with the original install data, I cannot use the same cartridge to reinstall that game to replace the broken switch 2 with a new one?
If I did try to install it, I'd get banned, then need to beg Nintendo to allow me to use my console again?
The account isn't tied to the game, but the roms are tied to the cartridges, while the DRM is tied to the console?
Where does that leave the account, only tied to the console?

This actively punishes physical games, and it's users.
Online purchased titles wouldn't ever have this issue, unless Nintendo purposely took away Access to them. I guess they've legally found a loophole to openly entice users to "forget" about trying to be unbanned.

Selling your cartridge and reinstalling your games should be fine. The issue is when a cartridge is cloned, and both the original and the cloned copy attempt to check in online using the same serial number at the same time. Nintendo's systems can't tell which is genuine and which is the dupe, but they know that this isn't supposed to be possible and flag the serial number as being compromised.

The second and bigger issue is that dumping cartridges is apparently quite easy, and people are buying games, dumping them onto a flash cart, then flipping the original cartridge onto an unsuspecting victim, so this immediately swept up a bunch of average users and not just people who are downloading pirated ROMs onto flash cards.

 

[fiyz]

If you ignore the red flag being waved in front of your face, then it's on you, sorry.

Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are all really annoying when it comes to the "kill switch". It's been like that for a while now, so let's not go all surprised-pikachu-face now with these shenanigans.

Sure, love the games, but much like getting into some zealot/religious cult: you either follow the rules or you get out before you get consumed/killed by it.

Stop giving your money to Companies that treat you like trash. Come on.

Regards.

Well said. Hopefully in a decade or so, the free internet guys give us a generative model + weights that prints pirated code, free of malice.

 

[Uberfish]

PSA : Nintendo specifically forbid game dumps in their EULA. It states if the software is not on the original cart, the licence isn't valid and you can end up banned even if it is your own personal dump. It's been tried and tested in court already.

Yes, it's more convenient, and yes, you're safe from theft and damage with dumps, but Nintendo are really annoyed that you dared to improve how your hardware works.

 

[Joomsy]

Well said. Hopefully in a decade or so, the free internet guys give us a generative model + weights that prints pirated code, free of malice.

I sincerely hope this doesn't happen. It just encourages blatant laziness, and actively contributes to illiteracy.

 

[Frogman1975]

Why does it always feel like Nintendo hates their customer base?

 

[TerryLaze]

Stop giving your money to Companies that treat you like trash. Come on.

I'm not disagreeing but...there are no companies that don't treat you like trash.

The Stop Killing Games initiative is the start point, for sure.

We all have to collectivelly keep an eye out and hope the EU does right by the consumer.

Regards.

What they are doing has nothing at all to do with this issue though.
They can be more successful than anything ever was, it will not change anything about nintendo banning consoles.
Somebody else will have to fight that separately.

there is like...2 games exclusive to switch 2 atm....and they arent worth the cost atm. (mario kart and DK)

also I have feeling the more that these bans from using 3rd party bought games there will eventually become a lawsuit as its a draconian thing to do to ban innocent people and force them to have to prove they are innocent & take up their time for soemthing that isnt their fault.

That's how every company works though.
If somebody uses a key generator, or any means of illegally getting a game key, and activates a game on any platform that you own physically then you won't be able to activate your legally bought game until you prove that you are indeed the owner of the physical game.

 

[-Fran-]

What they are doing has nothing at all to do with this issue though.
They can be more successful than anything ever was, it will not change anything about nintendo banning consoles.
Somebody else will have to fight that separately.

It is. Simple reason being: if they brick the only legal avenue of playing a game you have purchased after they drop support, they would be in breach of a potential legislation that looks to prevent Companies from killing games, since that also involves the medium in which they're played. I'm sure some caveats will apply, but for hardware which has been already sold, a "kill switch" should be absolutely illegal without a court order after a trial in-between.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

It is. Simple reason being: if they brick the only legal avenue of playing a game you have purchased after they drop support, they would be in breach of a potential legislation that looks to prevent Companies from killing games, since that also involves the medium in which they're played. I'm sure some caveats will apply,

Being thrown out of a service for illegal conduct has nothing to do with a company stopping the service of a game after x years for legal customers.
People get permabanned from games all the times on all of the platforms that's not what they are trying to change.
Stop killing games will also not change the law in a way that will make pirating games be ok.

but for hardware which has been already sold, a "kill switch" should be absolutely illegal without a court order after a trial in-between.

Regards.

Sure, and if somebody can build a case against that then they will.

 

[-Fran-]

Being thrown out of a service for illegal conduct has nothing to do with a company stopping the service of a game after x years for legal customers.
People get permabanned from games all the times on all of the platforms that's not what they are trying to change.
Stop killing games will also not change the law in a way that will make pirating games be ok.

Sure, and if somebody can build a case against that then they will.

Your use of "illegal" is interesting in the context. The whole point of something being "legal" or not, is (and should be!) a matter for courts of law in the corresponding jurisdiction. I know you'll argue about the definition and we'll get obnoxiously pedantic, but it's interesting, to me, you say that without understanding what something constitutes for "legality". Remember: TOSes and EULAs do not override law. And that last part, is exactly what the STG/SDG initiative will address. Also why the whole industry is worried; not just game publishers, as it can extend to consoles and related hardware. If you want to disagree and go the PirateSoftware (Jason "I worked at Blizzard" Hall) route by thinking it would be "overreaching" for consumers to demand companies have it a tad harder to kill your purchases (hardware or software), be my guest.

From another perspective: imagine Microsoft, because you installed their OS, could just brick your PC because they just wanted to. Or Lenovo, or Dell, etc... "Ah, you installed Linux in your laptop and that's against my TOS; I'm bricking your laptop".

Yeah... No.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

Your use of "illegal" is interesting in the context. The whole point of something being "legal" or not, is (and should be!) a matter for courts of law in the corresponding jurisdiction. I know you'll argue about the definition and we'll get obnoxiously pedantic, but it's interesting, to me, you say that without understanding what something constitutes for "legality". Remember: TOSes and EULAs do not override law.

Having two people play the same copy of a game at the same time on two different consoles is de facto illegal, in every part of this world and under all jurisdictions.
It's not connected to TOS or EULA, it's copyright law.

And that last part, is exactly what the STG/SDG initiative will address. Also why the whole industry is worried; not just game publishers, as it can extend to consoles and related hardware. If you want to disagree and go the PirateSoftware (Jason "I worked at Blizzard" Hall) route by thinking it would be "overreaching" for consumers to demand companies have it a tad harder to kill your purchases (hardware or software), be my guest.

A game is not killed because "you" lost access to your console, the game itself is still up and running, stop killing games is about not killing the game and not about not kicking you out of the game/console.

From another perspective: imagine Microsoft, because you installed their OS, could just brick your PC because they just wanted to.

I'm pretty sure that you are old enough to have lived through windows 7 and before, where if MS noticed you using a fake serial, or having a pirated copy in general, would give you a 30 day grace period and then just not work anymore.

You keep saying bricked when nintendo just banns people from the network.

 

[-Fran-]

Having two people play the same copy of a game at the same time on two different consoles is de facto illegal, in every part of this world and under all jurisdictions.
It's not connected to TOS or EULA, it's copyright law.

No. That's not how copyright law works. They want you to do that, but licenses DO NOT NEED to force you into that mindset. They do because of convenience. How each copyright holder enforces their right of ownership is up to them. There is no REAL LEGAL requiement for Companies to say "you can't lend your code to a friend and play the game simultaneously".

The proof? Split Fiction. One person buys the game, but two can play it simultaneously.

A game is not killed because "you" lost access to your console, the game itself is still up and running, stop killing games is about not killing the game and not about not kicking you out of the game/console.

If you lose the only exclusive medium for which the game, as advertised, stops working, then there's a very strong case you can make there. It'll be up for the people behind the initiative if they want to go on this tangent.

I'm pretty sure that you are old enough to have lived through windows 7 and before, where if MS noticed you using a fake serial, or having a pirated copy in general, would give you a 30 day grace period and then just not work anymore.

You keep saying bricked when nintendo just banns people from the network.

The OS not working didn't mean you can't install another OS or just re-install Windows. Consoles are specific machines where you do not have certain freedoms and that is plenty advertised when going into them, but that is because we've treated it as "it's just what it is". Sony allowed people to install Linux in the PS3, but then took that away. Remember that? Some people are still salty about it and rightfully so.

Also, if they take away functionality you paid for and was advertised as part of the purchase, yes, that is bricking. The whole point is to stop Companies from having too much control over things we purchase and how we use them. Enforcing "legality" is for courts, not private entities. Again, caveats apply due to regulation, but that's the whole point: the games industry is lightly regulated and most of the regulations are HEAVILY skewed in favour of companies and not consumers.

I'll stop here.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

No. That's not how copyright law works. They want you to do that, but licenses DO NOT NEED to force you into that mindset. They do because of convenience. How each copyright holder enforces their right of ownership is up to them. There is no REAL LEGAL requiement for Companies to say "you can't lend your code to a friend and play the game simultaneously".

The proof? Split Fiction. One person buys the game, but two can play it simultaneously.

What the heck are you even talking about?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Of course a company doesn't HAVE TO enforce copyright.
How is this even the smallest amount of relevant to nintendo?

If you lose the only exclusive medium for which the game, as advertised, stops working, then there's a very strong case you can make there. It'll be up for the people behind the initiative if they want to go on this tangent.

The difference is losing it because you did something wrong (the game still exists and is playable for anybody else) vs. losing it because the company just decided to stop supporting the game (the game itself doesn't exist anymore) .
These two are extremely different things.

The OS not working didn't mean you can't install another OS or just re-install Windows. Consoles are specific machines where you do not have certain freedoms and that is plenty advertised when going into them, but that is because we've treated it as "it's just what it is". Sony allowed people to install Linux in the PS3, but then took that away. Remember that? Some people are still salty about it and rightfully so.

You bought windows (in theory) and windows stopped working, what is the difference?! What's your point? You bought switch and switch stopped working, it's the same thing.

Also, if they take away functionality you paid for and was advertised as part of the purchase, yes, that is bricking. The whole point is to stop Companies from having too much control over things we purchase and how we use them. Enforcing "legality" is for courts, not private entities. Again, caveats apply due to regulation, but that's the whole point: the games industry is lightly regulated and most of the regulations are HEAVILY skewed in favour of companies and not consumers.

I'll stop here.

Regards.

This is A point, but not the point of stop killing games.
This is louis rossmann's point, he is fighting for right to repair and might do something for consumer rights in consoles in general.