Nintendo Banned Switch 2 Owner For Playing a Used Switch 1 Game They Bought Online (tomshardware.com) 58
"A Nintendo Switch 2 user reportedly got his brand-new console banned by Nintendo after buying used Switch 1 games and patching them on his console," reports Tom's Hardware:
According to Reddit user dmanthey, they purchased four used titles off the Facebook marketplace, inserted them into the Switch 2, and had them all updated. When they turned on their handhelds the following day, they received a message saying that they were restricted from Nintendo's online services and that they couldn't even download the games they had already bought...
[T]hey were able to prove their innocence by pulling up the Facebook Marketplace listing for their games and sending the photos of their purchased cartridges. According to the Redditor, the process was painless and fast, and it was "so much easier than getting support from Microsoft or Sony...." Other users warned, though, that this isn't always a guaranteed resolution.
Nintendo is known for being protective of its intellectual property and delivers harsh penalties to anyone caught violating it. We've already had several reports of users getting banned for using Mig Flash, even on their own ROMs. And while it's not true that getting banned turns your Switch 2 into a brick, it will still prevent you from accessing the company's online services, which severely restricts its features and usability.
"Nintendo attaches unique codes to its Switch game cartridges to prevent piracy," notes Engadget. "However, bad actors can copy games onto a third-party device, like the MIG Flash, and then resell the physical game card. Once Nintendo detects two instances of its unique code being online at the same time, it will ban any accounts using it..." This anti-piracy policy isn't new — Nintendo has long had a reputation for fiercely combating any type of piracy — but it has become relevant again thanks to the recently released Switch 2, which offers backwards compatibility with original Switch titles. The company even recently amended its user agreement to allow itself the power to brick a Nintendo Switch that's caught running pirated games or mods.
[T]hey were able to prove their innocence by pulling up the Facebook Marketplace listing for their games and sending the photos of their purchased cartridges. According to the Redditor, the process was painless and fast, and it was "so much easier than getting support from Microsoft or Sony...." Other users warned, though, that this isn't always a guaranteed resolution.
Nintendo is known for being protective of its intellectual property and delivers harsh penalties to anyone caught violating it. We've already had several reports of users getting banned for using Mig Flash, even on their own ROMs. And while it's not true that getting banned turns your Switch 2 into a brick, it will still prevent you from accessing the company's online services, which severely restricts its features and usability.
"Nintendo attaches unique codes to its Switch game cartridges to prevent piracy," notes Engadget. "However, bad actors can copy games onto a third-party device, like the MIG Flash, and then resell the physical game card. Once Nintendo detects two instances of its unique code being online at the same time, it will ban any accounts using it..." This anti-piracy policy isn't new — Nintendo has long had a reputation for fiercely combating any type of piracy — but it has become relevant again thanks to the recently released Switch 2, which offers backwards compatibility with original Switch titles. The company even recently amended its user agreement to allow itself the power to brick a Nintendo Switch that's caught running pirated games or mods.
So the seller copied? (Score:1)
So is this a case of the seller copying the game, keeping the copy, and selling the original?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the actual fuck? You could have read the SECOND FUCKING PARAGRAPH of the summary:
"[T]hey were able to prove their innocence by pulling up the Facebook Marketplace listing for their games and sending the photos of their purchased cartridges. According to the Redditor, the process was painless and fast, and it was "so much easier than getting support from Microsoft or Sony...."
Legit cartridges, quickly and easily reversed, nothing to see here.
Re:So the seller copied? (Score:4, Insightful)
Legit cartridges, quickly and easily reversed, nothing to see here.
You're reading more detail into the situation than the article goes into. Nintendo would only brick the switch because it has seen this cartridge's serial number on other consoles AT THE SAME TIME. This means it is most likely that someone duplicated the cartridge and sold it at some point. It may be that this user got the original one, but copies are out there somewhere or Nintendo wouldn't have bricked them in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a novel suggestion: brick Nintendo. Never again buy anything from Nintendo. It's not like there aren't endless other options, and less puerile to boot.
Re: (Score:2)
The quote about "at the same time" is coming from Engadget. It may have originally come from Nintendo that way, or it may be that someone at Engadget misunderstood something.
Creating FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
This practice of punish-until-proven-innocent also creates fear about buying used games. Its a totally legitimate and legal practice that Nintendo wants to discourage, because they want you to buy new copies at full price, where Nintendo gets all the money, instead of a used copy, where Nintendo gets none of the money.
So now, any time you buy a used copy, you risk the ban-hammer. Better buy a new copy instead. You know, like all honest people should.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
When two copies of the same game are running at the same time, that's proof of guilt. You may have been unknowingly complicit, but you are still guilty of participation in a crime. The temporary lockout seems to me to be equivalent to arrest on probable cause. If you can show legitimacy, they restore your account.
Re: (Score:3)
When two copies of the same game are running at the same time, that's proof of guilt. You may have been unknowingly complicit, but you are still guilty of participation in a crime. The temporary lockout seems to me to be equivalent to arrest on probable cause. If you can show legitimacy, they restore your account.
IANAL, but as I understand it a person who unknowingly purchase a counterfeit game isn't guilty of a crime; although the seller is if they know or should know it's counterfeit. The purchaser can, however, lose the item such as Nintendo did in this case; although what they did was, IMHO, a bit excessive. A better solution would be to be able to block individual games or serial numbers. I do not know how the Switch checks for legitimate serial numbers; but I suspect it is a phone home setup, based on TFA,
Re: Creating FUD (Score:2)
Lock out service they own while leaving our games playable seems like the least harm path to me ⦠it presumes a user's games are the user's and only messes with the part of the relationship a player has with Nintendo.
Re: (Score:2)
Locking you out from the games you bought is everything, but not hte "least harm path"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The purchaser can, however, lose the item such as Nintendo did in this case; although what they did was, IMHO, a bit excessive.
What Nintendo did is far out of proportion, and I would suggest that they owe their customer both an apology AND compensation. Like: send them a gift card and a free replacement for their game cart, and then Void the old cart ID's ability to be played on their network.
Nintendo is a billion dollar company. Pushing an update to a console revoking a certain game cartridge ID's cap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Creating FUD (Score:2)
I liked that Nintendo did NOT block playing the game. In that, they did not steal a player's property. They could have bricked the device essentially. Instead, they closed off the access to *their* property until the matter gets resolved. That strikes me as a good compromise.
Re: (Score:1)
They blocked a bunch of games that the user purchased digitally from Nintendo, and Nintendo knows for a fact this is true. Those games were not relevant to the duplicate license issue at all. Blocking access to THOSE games is way too heavy handed and not remotely a "good compromise."
Re:Creating FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
When two copies of the same game are running at the same time, that's proof of guilt.
False. It is evidence that one or both running instance of the game might be illegal copies.
A party without intent or knowledge is by definition an innocent party.
The temporary lockout seems to me to be equivalent to arrest on probable cause.
There is no probable cause for arrest. Even if the physical cartridge was found out to be stolen in the buyer's possession the cartridge is not enough to show probable cause. The only thing you are facing is that police are going to take stolen article, since you have no right to keep it. Only way you would have committed a crime would be purchasing, receiving, or holding an item willfully with knowledge that it was stolen.
An arrest when you didn't would be unlawful, and the authorities would fail at the probable cause hearing, Unless they are also able to provide some tangible evidence the person in possession committed the actual theft or with criminal intent conspired in the theft, or in a related crime, before probable cause arises.
For example; even if it was something high-value such as you purchased car, and unbeknownst to you it turns out to be a stolen car. You are not subject to arrest for having unknowingly purchased it, and there is no probable cause for arrest. By the same token: the police are going to take custody of the car and return it, and in general your recourse will be a civil lawsuit against the person who sold you the car, which can only proceed to discover and trial after the conclusion of any criminal charges and investigation against the seller are resolved.
Re: (Score:2)
When two copies of the same game are running at the same time, that's proof of guilt. You may have been unknowingly complicit, but you are still guilty of participation in a crime.
That's incorrect. For stolen goods, mere possession without knowledge as long as it's reasonable to not know is not a crime. For copyright infringement for it to raise to criminal offense it also requires knowledge of the infringement.
Whether what Nintendo is doing is legal or not depends on jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions have stricter consumer protection laws than others that might prevent Nintendo to do things they can do in other places.
Re: Creating FUD (Score:1)
What I wonder is: was this sale obviously too good to be true. They brought 4 games according to the story.
While I like physical games, I've come to realize they nothing without the updates nowadays. Particularly if they have an online component it all actively hurts Nintendo having people use pirated compared to older consoles.
Re: Creating FUD (Score:1)
Re: Creating FUD (Score:2)
They are not bricking. They are cutting off network access to their own servers. That is a service not a taking of product.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised they even sell physical games for Switch 2. I'm expecting the next generation of consoles to be digital only, no second hand sales at all.
Re: (Score:2)
This practice of punish-until-proven-innocent also creates fear about buying used games. Its a totally legitimate and legal practice that Nintendo wants to discourage, because they want you to buy new copies at full price, where Nintendo gets all the money, instead of a used copy, where Nintendo gets none of the money.
So now, any time you buy a used copy, you risk the ban-hammer. Better buy a new copy instead. You know, like all honest people should.
How does this look from Nintendos perspective? Is the problem of piracy worth this anti-piracy effort? Sounds like they assist victims better than most mega-corps do.
What is the cost of doing nothing? Depends. If the MIG flash theft process is about as complex as ripping and burning a CD, then I guess you can expect a fair amount of loss. Enough to take action. Being a doormat in this world, comes with predictable results. Don’t be a fucking doormat.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming it's because our economy and civilization is collapsing so if you are conservative and you want to keep defending what you perceive as the good old days you kind of have to go all in on corporate oligarchy. Otherwise you got to admit the emperor has no clothes.
Either way it creeps me.
Re: Creating FUD (Score:2)
Many corporations try to do the right thing. They are collections of people not alien entities. This thread is not so much defending them as asking "What should their response be?" Someone is stealing from them. And that ultimately steals from individual artists and engineers who make our games. How should that be prevented? What is appropriate response? In this case, I think Nintendo found an elegant solution that does not brick the device or block the games from being played. That actually seems pretty fo
Re: (Score:2)
It's because /. Has gradually aged from a bunch of young radicals in favor of I intellectual freedom and copy left, to a bunch of aging reactionaries wanting to kick down at young people and defend the status quo. Same as it ever was.
Re: (Score:2)
This is as fair use for the company as fair use is for the consumer.
You buy shady stuff from a shady place you are taking a RISK. Neither the company or the customer are to blame but they have to deal with the mess the middleman created; however, the company doesn't know about it while the customer took the risky action.
Let us not attack everything involving a global corporation as being equivalent. Nuance...
Nintendo resolved this problem much better than anybody else I've heard about and they didn't brick
Re: (Score:2)
The punishment is way too severe, given that guilt has not been established. Especially since someone might not be able to provide the requested screenshots after the fact.
At most, Nintendo should block just that game, not the person's entire account.
The right of first sale is also important, and if this enforcement approach winds up making an end-run around that right, then that is a spirit-of-the-law violation (though I am not a lawyer and have no ideal how that would hold up legally).
So, I really don't
Re: (Score:2)
1) The unique ID and encryption scheme also exist for SECURITY. Not just merely lip-service security as is often the excuse. Signed software access is greatly enhanced by unique access; allowing breaches to be contained while a shared key can only be revoked for everybody after just 1 breach.
2) Online cheating ruins gaming for everybody. There are difficult, expensive, complex ideas to counter this, some of which might work before online collaboration helps people circumvent everything; even good things.
3)
Re: (Score:2)
None of your points counter mine.
Yeah, so? We aren't talking about modders or the running of compromised code here. We are talking about a duplicated license, and what the right response is. Blocking just that game, as I proposed, is a much more reasonable response than denying a person access to all their digital purchases which Nintendo knows for a fact they purchased.
We aren't talking about onl
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't looking for a full debate just bringing up ideas but ok:
I think it's NICE Nintendo allowed counterfeit games to be used; they only bricked online. They could brick games but decided not to do so. I'd like to know why because they obviously thought about the matter for a long time.
The PAID game remained (although not legit) and the PAID system remains; only the PAID online service agreement ended and likely a prorated refund would happen. They don't even have to provide free updates (you show me any
Re: (Score:2)
When Nintendo locks you off their online services, you get no refunds. No prorate for the subscription, no refunds on the digital games you can't play, nothing. They keep it all and you can't play it.
That came out a while back right here on Slashdot. Though if you have links that say otherwise, I would be happy to be proven wrong on these points.
Re: (Score:2)
If the MIG flash theft process is about as complex as ripping and burning a CD, then I guess you can expect a fair amount of loss. Enough to take action.
In theory, yes. But I would say take actions, BUT take reasonable, calculated, and proportionate actions.
Which is what they were doing before the Switch 2 launched.
The actions they are taking with the Switch2 don't actually prevent piracy. Apparently the consoles that are bricked can be used to play games only offline that you load from physical media -
Re: (Score:2)
What are you going to do as a consumer if your console was just bricked for using copied games? IF you are truly a guilty party, then that means you have the ability to get more copied games. You are probably not running out to pay $500 for a brand new console and ewaste that one.
If you're smart, you'll return the console to Amazon as defective. If everyone did this every time, and ideally returned *multiple* new Switch 2 units in a row as defective (Nintendo even having the ability to do this is arguably a defect), Nintendo would end up with a huge pile of e-waste that they can't do anything with, the supply for their hardware would crater without any actual users, and they would be forced by market forces to pull their heads out of their asses.
Treating your customers as criminals
Re: (Score:2)
If you're smart, you'll return the console to Amazon as defective.
You can try, but is extremely likely Amazon would check on the status of your console with Nintendo and decline the return as the restricted product constitutes damage due to consumer abuse. Even if not.. you only get away with that maybe once.
Nintendo would almost definitely decline the return and refuse warranty service.
Nintendo would end up with a huge pile of e-waste that they can't do anything with
They'll likely refuse warranty, so th
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo has been screwing over their customers for many, many years and their punishment has been record-breaking sales. I can't think of any malicious behavior Nintendo could perpetrate that would prevent people from buying their consoles. So what incentive do they have for not doing this shit?
Re: (Score:2)
Just ends up to the situation that you shouldn't buy Nintendo.
Re: (Score:1)
"This practice of punish-until-proven-innocent also creates fear about buying [del]used games[/del][ins]this company's products[/ins].
There, fixed it for you.
Not a chance. (Score:4, Insightful)
The company even recently amended its user agreement to allow itself the power to brick a Nintendo Switch that's caught running pirated games or mods.
There is approximately zero chance of me buying any electronic device with that "feature". Company that has so little respect for their customers should die in a fire.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't actually brick the device. They block it from online services - which effectively is the same thing in the console world. Literally every company has this power these days, they just don't execute it like Nintendo does.
Nintendo is evil (Score:2)
and should be avoided
This is NOT evil (Score:1)
You have the right to not purchase most things if their cost is objectionable to you. If enough people disagree, then your opinion doesn't matter. You are not the center of the universe; but are acting like an entitled teenager who feels that nothing should be done about their shoplifting.
Something is not evil simply because a spoiled child says so. Does nobody learn what evil actually is? Or actually study it? I've noticed even religious people have not done any formal study of the topic.
Evil is the condi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Evil is the condition by which a human is motivated to do an anti-social act.
That's evil as a *noun*, sure. Evil is also an adjective. And whether used as a noun or an adjective, the word evil can also refer to the act itself, not just a moral condition. And as such, it can mean causing harm or intending to cause harm to others, and it can also mean morally corrupt.
In this case, the act of bricking a brand new game console without any evidence is doing an entirely evil act (harming others) in the name of justice. And from a theological perspective, there are few greater evils th
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo didn't brick the system. They didn't brick the game. They banned online access; download server access for purchased items opens them to possible lawsuit. I can see how given their download servers were massively hacked for years why they would be paranoid about allowing compromised systems access to it. I think their download/update servers can still be used on the WiiU to pirate software - provided by Nintendo! They are not yet bricking updates etc for past customers of old old products.
heretical
Its time (Score:2)
Don't give them money (Score:3)
Don't give such companies money. If they can brick your device, you can just not buy the device first place.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree completely: vote with wallet.
But there is no reason to stop there. There is no harm at all in communicating with the company and sharing your grievances with them. Sometimes a company's interest in keeping its customers happy motivates response to such grievances (Ubuntu is the first company that comes to mind. They very quickly switched gears on important decisions when their user base complained.).
There is also no harm in engaging with the community of users to discuss the issues.
And, where app
You know what's also painless and fast? (Score:2)
Games Industry a bad place (Score:2)
Firing Developers, ripping off and suing consumers.
They-magedon (Score:2)
This post is a perfect example of how confusing a singular they is.
For the author:
By writing an article, you effectively become an online journalist. Make an effort and go find out the actual gender of the person in question. Then use the right pronoun. Stop writing every article in an abstract and confusing way.