Thread 714961184

>you shouldn't be able to go online with a hacked console! of you're going to pirate, you should not expect to be able to access online services
I keep hearing this argument on /v/. When did this board become so buckbroken?
If you legally purchased a piece of hardware, under no circumstance should the seller be allowed to tamper with any of the functionalities you paid for.

Nintendo would just pull out of Brazil if pushed on this. It is a small market with lots of poor people. Also games are expensive there.

Revoking access to their own networks has nothing to do with tampering with the functionalities of your device. The EULA overreaches and talks about Nintendo's right to actually make your device unusable, not just revoke access to their network, this overreach is what's being challenged.

You paid for the console, not the service

>>714961184 (OP)
>If you legally purchased a piece of hardware, under no circumstance should the seller be allowed to tamper with any of the functionalities you paid for.
You didn't buy their servers thoughbeit

>>714961392
But if you bought the online subscription you did pay for the service

>>714961351
>Nintendo would just pull out of Brazil if pushed on this
A foreign civil court decision can be executed in the US and Europe, them pulling out isn't going to get them off the hook for the units already sold in Brazil

>>714961435
Services can be revoked. And they shouldn't let you renew them if that's the case. With a service you didn't buy any hardware.

This has literally always been the case for every console that has online capabilities. Why don't I see this "controversy" flare up for PlayStation and Xbox? Nintendo derangement syndrome claims another. Sad

>>714961692
>Why don't I see this "controversy" flare up for PlayStation and Xbox?
Sony was already sued for this exact same thing when the PS5 launched in Brazil and lost, having to unban all consoles and even pay damages to affected users

>>714961374
>Revoking access to their own networks has nothing to do with tampering with the functionalities of your device
It does when the games require internet authentication to run.

>>714961184 (OP)
>brazil
Nothing will come out of this.

>>714961580
It's brazil. They can just pay the judge a few million to drop the case.

>>714962456
Then it's the game licenses that are being revoked. Not the console's functionality being altered.

>>714962561
That's an entirely different realm of illegality in and of itself you fucking bootlicking kike. Kill yourself.

Not hacking the consoles is the dumbest thing you'll ever do. Consoles are cheaply designed with poor SOC and countless other problems. Did you know that it's illegal to change a console's CD drive? Even if said cd drive scratches the disks you bought, or the broken HDD. also illegal, or the other problems inside the console. Also illegal. Any kind of mod is illegal and since it's impossible to get OEM support from nintendo in Brazil, they don't even have the excuse that insurance covers it.

>>714962665
Ngl, i dont even need a switch 2 since all the games like tony hawks still run on a jailbroken switch 1 for free+dlc

>>714962862
Now I'm not interested either. I bought mine in 2024 and although in my opinion it was nintendo's best console (I miss backwards compatibility), the console was something. I didn't like most of the first parties with the exception of BOTW

>STOP killing games!!!
>n-no wait not like that
pathetic

can you guys hack it already so i can get free games

>>714961985
Okay let's seee oops not the same thing, NDS every single day
>Sony suffered defeat in the lawsuit filed by the user who had the PS5 banned for sharing PS Plus Collection games with others
The banned users in Brazil obviously tried to hack their console

>>714963431
The exact situation that triggered the suit wasn't the same, but the precedent set was that hardware manufacturers cannot tamper with the device's functionality after sale

Pirates already have access to all games by you know... pirating. So blocking them from online services is a slap on the wrist that doesn't do anything, since they can make private servers anyway.

Honestly the manufactured outrage over this is embarrassing

it's a little weird how much /v/ loves sucking nintendo's cock

>>714963610
>blocking them from online services is a slap on the wrist that doesn't do anything
It does achieve one thing: Fucking over paying customers.

>>714963729
I just hate brownoids

>>714963203
what game is there you need a hacked switch 2 for? they all run on switch 1

>>714961184 (OP)
But how Nintedo bricks the console? Do they just block the account, or stop the console to work entirely?

Also, remember that they brick it even for futile reasons, such as an "unapropriate" username.

Nintendo is 100% abusive, and always has been. I hope that multiple governments make them pay.

Switch 2 banned system does nothing different than SWITCH 1. No idea why people are acting upset now. My switch has been banned for over 7 years now.

No online, firmware or game updates or eShop access. But my systems hacked so I can do all this manually myself with custom firmware. All this new outrage is fake or misinformed.

>>714964007
It's basically a system level ban on the NAND that prevents the system from going online

>>714963815
How are you a paying customer if you got banned for using a piracy flashcard to play pirated roms?

>>714964120
You paid for the console

>>714964007
A ban restricts the use of online services which essentially freezes the switch in place. No more firmware updates, game updates, eShop access. Can't redownload games you own if they're not download or you delete them.

If custom firmware is available, like it is for switch 1 you can circumvent this.

>>714961184 (OP)
It's ok when Nintendo does it.

>>714964184
Ok? And you can continue using the console frozen in time at the point it got banned.

As a non-third worlder, I don’t want third-worlder shitters with hacked consoles in my online game.

>>714964265
That is not what you paid for when you bought the console

>>714961184 (OP)
>If you legally purchased a piece of hardware
They own the hardware, not the software.

>>714961184 (OP)
they aren't tampering with the hardware. they're tampering with the software, which is copyrighted.
if you can wipe the software and use your own, then do so

>>714961985
>Sony was already sued for this exact same thing when the PS5 launched in Brazil and lost,
They weren't by the way they were sued because people were selling accounts and then they banned consoles associated with it.
In other words no actual piracy was occurring.

In this case it's just plain piracy protection

>>714962665
>Did you know that it's illegal to change a console's CD drive? Even if said cd drive scratches the disks you bought, or the broken HDD. also illegal, or the other problems inside the console. Also illegal
By the way all of this is legal. The only thing that isn't it's software modification.

>>714964332
When you create a Nintendo account to go online you agree to terms and conditions not bypass game security to play pirated games. With the result being banned from accessing their online services.

>>714964276
based and only correct take

>>714964373
then let me install another software on it

>>714964620
Terms of service are only valid insofar as they don't infringe upon cogent norms, such as consumer law

>>714964631
you bought a machine with a close software system. this is literally something you bought into.
if you don't like it, don't buy the system, or figure out how to install custom firmware on it

>>714964713
>the law is about consumer vibes
that's not what a terms of service means.
i'm not even against pirating or CFW, but being banned off online play is both standard and fair for playing with an online copy where they can detect you.
less fair is banning you for using an unsigned-but-self-dumped copy of a game, but there's no difference in software between that and a pirated copy. i'm pretty sure the legal terms already say you can be banned for using any unsigned copy anyway

>>714961184 (OP)
>>you shouldn't be able to go online with a hacked console!
people think the exact opposite
fuck walled gardens
I want consoles to go back to the way they were in 5th gen: entire game in the box, no online garbage, no DLC, no updates

>>714964938
youll just cheat in my mario kart races im not falling for your tricks

>>714961184 (OP)
>When did this board become so buckbroken?
Circa 2017? Post GG, circa-ish. /v/ decided sucking corporations' cocks was morally superior, and everyone complaining about the industry was a redditard.

Complete 180° from pre-2016 /v/.

Mutts are so fucked, holy.
Glad only mutt switches can brick

>>714964007
>such as an "unapropriate" username
This was a bullshit story, the guy used a Mig.

>>714961184 (OP)
as far as I knew you were never able to use pirated games online unless you were on a private server or p2p

>>714965971
I hate to break it to you but Nintendo has the ability to brick everyone's console even yours, retard.

>>714965607
the people sucking corporate cock are plants being paid to post here

>>714967414
no one cares about the 5 people on /v/
meds, quick

>>714967259
And why should that be acceptable

>>714961184 (OP)
I remember having a modded wii, that thing was amazing.

>>714961184 (OP)
If you were following /v/'s takes on s2, you'd know the largest one isn't about online while pirating, it's about paying for the fucking thing, and you don't own anything
>Muh tos *slurp slurp slurp*
When you can only use the most basic functions, assuming you have internet access, and have to pay a subscription service for literally anything else, including shit that either should be free or used to be able for individual purchase and subsequently never required internet again, nintendo has lost it, and only the most conditioned fanboys and shareholders will defend them, but they're subhuman so their opinions don't really matter, just their money

>>714967787
I haven't followed the switch 2 at all, what services are behind paywalls?

>>714963531
If you try to hack into the console I think they should be able to ban your console from using their online servers. As far as I know they have never actually made a console unusable offline. Same thing with Sony and MS, everyone just bans console online access.

>>714964930
dumping a cart is piracy because you will have two copies of a game you paid for one time

>>714967938
not him. paywall or not, nearly everything requires online, so gettin banned is effectively a brick
>game key cards (i.e. roughly 80% of the switch 2's catalog)
>digital games, including digital game cards
>updates and DLC
>redownloading your library
>cloud saves
>online multiplayer
>old virtual console games
>chat feature
without online your console is a brick

>>714967938
The new discord ripoff voice chat shit is part of the Switch Online sub. Kinda gay desu

>>714969054
incentive for not being a bloody pirate

>>714961692
Because these people are newfags who have never hacked their consoles.

>>714961184 (OP)
>tamper with any of the functionalities you paid for.
And it dont, just Block the console of ascess their servers

>>714969054
If you have flash cards why do you need digital download from the store and the goyim key cards retard

>>714969095
servitization is an incentive to pirate
stop bricking people's machines
stop ruining the secondhand market with your anti-consumer restrictions

>>714961692
Nintendo happened to update their ToS right when people were going out of their way to find reasons other than price to screech "Switch 2 bad". As a result you now have a bunch of self-proclaimed legal experts who have never read a EULA in their lives convince themselves that this is new and only Nintendo is doing it.

It would be nice if it got these trannoids to actually read the shit they agree to going forward but you just know they won't.

>>714961692
>>714969552
>m-muh sony muh m-microsoft!
all consoles are cancer. things need to go back to the way they were in 5th gen

>>714967938
playing online

I have no idea how people just fucking rolled over and accepted that you need to pay an extra fee to play the game you already paid for with the internet you already paid for. Even worse, back in the PS3/Wii days people would constantly praise the Xbox 360 for its "superior" online experience when it was functionally the exact same shit as the PS3 except with a marginally better UI and you had to pay a $50 subscription fee for it

>>714969907
If you use Windows you don't own your PC.

>>714969446
whatever you tell yourself, thief

>>714962542
Thats what will happen in the end. Nintendokuza already paid the ryujinx hueheue devs to fuck off. They will follow that route here as well. Its brazil after all.

>>714969054
Current age pirates get what they deserve. They know perfectly that newer consoles come with stricter anti-piracy measures, and Nintendo specifically has been very adamant about fighting piracy. They could have kept playing their pirated games in their Switch 1 while keeping the console offline, but they really needed to put that fancy flashcart filled with pirated games inside the brand new console filled to the brim with anti-piracy protocols. I have no sympathy for them.

>>714961351
>pulls out of brazil
>the state sanctions emulation and now a bunch of macacos have permanently entered into an arms race assfucking the nintendo boomer execs with no recourse where nintendo has to cage in their customers more and more
they don't want this

>they can't do this!
>because... because I don't want them to!
This site is 18+ only

>>714970059
Yeah man you're so right console online services don't offer servers or anything like that so they must operate at zero cost!

>>714972551
>console online services don't offer servers or anything
They do actually
>they must operate at zero cost
Actually there is a cost associated with them

None of this contradicts my point, thoughbeit

>>714970059
>you need to pay an extra fee to play the game you already paid for
As far as I know, the only games you need to pay an "extra fee" for are Tetris 99 and F-Zero 99, which require NSO to have access to, every other Nintendo game is fully playable offline, but if you want to access to the multiplayer online features, then surely $20 a year shouldn't be outside your budget.

>with the internet you already paid for
This remains as such a stupid argument. You're not paying Nintendo for your own internet, you're paying Nintendo to access to THEIR online servers. I have never seen such argument being applied to MMOs like WoW or FFXIV, aren't you also paying to use "your own internet" to play those games?

>>714972551
game companies host their own game servers
steam doesn't charge you to play online on games you own does it?

>>714973301
>then surely $20 a year shouldn't be outside your budget.
$0 for the rest of my life is the highest I'm willing to go
>I have never seen such argument being applied to MMOs like WoW or FFXIV
This also applies to those games

>>714962635
You sound mad :)

>>714962456
>internet shits itself
>power in neighborhood goes down
NINTENDO IS BREAKING MY SWITCH!!!!!!!!!! WHY NINTENDO BREAK MY GAMES THIS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>714961184 (OP)
I blatantly played online on pirated games with my hacked vita and the account never got banned. Still use it on my ps5

>>714973301
>>714973346
valve pays for it with their 30% cut why cant nintendo

>>714973694
Xbox was the only company that was decent at detecting modified consoles all the way up until the PS4 generation, where even then, the Wii U and 3DS lagged behind. The Switch was the first Nintendo console that had any kind of license verification to tell if you were playing a pirated game online in order to send out autobans. The 3DS laid the groundwork for this infrastructure but it only prevented you from using generic licenses to make calls to their CDN to download games for free later on in its lifespan.

>>714973346
>game companies host their own servers
Some do. Most use servers hosted by the platform owner.
Even ones that host their own servers integrate with the platform's social and auth servers
You want a service you fucking pay for it

>>714961184 (OP)
>Brazilians are malding over the Switch's 2 in depth secruity features discouraging users to hack their systems
Get fucked shitters. Nintendo will win the lawsuit, but not like that country has any money to pay Nintendo. Good try.

>>714973740
Because Nintendo also offers other services within their NSO Subscription, such as Nintendo Music and Nintendo Today. Are they meaningless in the grand scheme of things? Depending on how much value they have for you, but there's no denying that the NSO is not just a service to play games online.

Additionally, Steam wins absolutely nothing by charging a monthly subscription to use their platform, they're a storefront first and foremost so making their users pay a fee just to have the ability to buy a game would be suicidal.

>>714961184 (OP)
tendies saw blood in the water with Playstation starting to shoot itself in the foot repeatedly after they moved to California, so supporting Nintendo has become a duty to them no matter how unpleasant it gets, because they don't want to allow even the slightest room to otherwise be made for Playstation to possibly regain ground

>>714964713
>such as consumer law
Fortunately consumer law doesn't supersede sellers rights.

>have AI write article because your zoomie brain was raised on forthnight
>it calls bricking NUKING for flavor

Dumb nigger

>>714976484
no i just really hate browns

>>714969054
>without online your console is a brick
You'd have a point if you weren't talking about a Nintendo system where there's a wealth of physical games with lengthy single player content and updates couldn't be shared via local wireless.

>>714973740
Funnily enough, Nintendo are the only company that can justify their payment since they don't own their servers.

>>714976542
It literally does, that is the entire point

>>714976843
It doesn't, just because you're a consumer doesn't mean you can waltz into a store and do as you please.

>>714962461
This thread should have ended here

>>714964007
It's just a ban for online and online updates, you can still play with physical copies.
The ban most likely happened because they used a MiG.
Basically nothing will come from the lawsuit Brazil is trying to do.

Fuck Brazil gon do lmao

>B-bu~but muh EULAs!
Not a legally binding document in my clay :-)

>buying any Ninty console when all of them can be emulated flawlessly

Does the west really have this much single-parent households for those nipponjews to keep on going?

>>714961184 (OP)
Anon, what kind of shitty site did you pull this from?

>>714976645
>b-but you can s-share u-updates!
you're a dumb retard
also, there's no option to share DLC
>there's a wealth of physical games
game key cards don't work without connecting you fucking corporate bootlicker cuck. a lot of games are digital-only, and games are no longer complete on cart.
you're also banned from family sharing thanks to their retarded (((virtual key card))) system

>>714968961
you can make yourself as much copys of your profuct you want, you justm ay not give it to someone else

>>714961184 (OP)
>When did this board become so buckbroken?
Nintentoddlers

>an online ban is not bricking a console
>Case dismissed
Womp womp
Cope n rope macacos

>>714961184 (OP)
I've never said "you shouldn't be able to go online with a hacked console" all I said is that you have to be retarded to do this and expect Nintendo isn't going to ban you tho.

>>714961184 (OP)
Why is Nintendo allowed to hold this power but not Iran?

>>714961184 (OP)
You agreed to the TOS.

>"Yuzu is going to win because emulators are legal!"
>Nintendo wins
>"Palworld is going to win because it's not plagiarism!"
>Nintendo wins
>"Brazil is going to win because rigged court!"
Hmmm

>>714961184 (OP)
>When did this board become so buckbroken?
You mean when did YOU become so buck broken. Since time immemorable there's been one golden rule, "don't get caught stealing" and you gen Z fuckwits do the exact opposite and flaunt that you are.

>>714990392
yuzu was settled
palworld case is still ongoing
and brazil has made both MS and sony bow down for similar issues

>>714990754
>brazil has made both MS and sony bow down for similar issues
Similar but not the same.
While they both were about bans neither were flat out related to piracy.

>>714988471
TOS/EULA are not legally binding in countries with actual consumer protection laws

>>714991134
Anything in them pertaining to actual laws is in fact legally binding meaning they can legally refuse service

>>714961184 (OP)
>If you legally purchased a piece of hardware, under no circumstance should the seller be allowed to tamper with any of the functionalities you paid for.
But the point is you wanting to extract more functionalities that you didn't paid for.
Also this is not new.
"Warranty void if removed" was always a thing.

>>714985628
Can they even afford games over there? I'm pretty sure they pirate everything they can get their hands on.

>>714985628
The issue is the ban is on hardware level, if it was just the account no one would care, and then those banned devices are making their way to the 2nd hand market with no recourse since Nintendo is saying "well we can't do shit just buy a new one lmao", which is pretty much turning the banned consoles into eWaste.

>>714992034
>which is pretty much turning the banned consoles into eWaste.
"pretty much" doesn't cut it in a court of law. If all but one function still works then no one in their right mind will say it's bricked.