This is messed up logic on your part. "Once the servers go down" Nintendo won't need to ban games. Meanwhile, we are talking about how actions regarding Mig may affect Nintendo while both Switch and Mig are relevent. How Nintendo reacts will have a compounding effect on its future.
Even if that were true, that is still speculation with no basis. This is the evidence I was referring to. Any number of things can happen in the future but how many of them will be significant is the real question. Again, hypotheticals are only worth discussing if they are practical.
I said it wasn't widespread but it did cause an impact. Though it was small, people were noticeably worried about buying second hand games for a while.
Okay? You just admitted I was right and the Nintendo Switch was and is, along with its games, still selling like hotcakes. The same thing will happen again once the Mig Switch is released. Overall sales won't be affected and people will make more informed decisions when buying from the secondhand market. If you don't do the proper research when purchasing something secondhand, the onus falls on the buyer and not the original parent of the product. At that point, its long left their hands and out of their immediate control.
So you cannot fathom why a publicly traded company cares about public opinion. We both have to agree that Nintendo does care about public opinion to have a productive discussion.
Have you seen any articles discussing the death of the secondhand market by Nintendo due to them banning gamecard certificates? No? That's because its not something that would even affect their public opinion. However, there are numerous pieces that indicate Nintendo is "anti-consumer" due to their other practices such as their takedowns of any fan projects or artificial scarcity of official products. This type of publicity can only be seen as negative and if you wish to agree that Nintendo is a company that cares about public opinion, there is clearly a contradiction because Nintendo not only doesn't prohibit such slander on their name but continues the practices that promote it.
Are you still using SX OS? Would you use it to try to play monster hunter online?
I thought the implication here would have been obvious but thinking I can tell is not your strong suit. The obvious comparison here was using SX OS when it was still relevant and not in the modern day. So to reiterate, Mig Switch is still an inferior product to SX OS when it was actively supported. Although if you wish to compare modern day SX OS to Mig Switch, there are clearly benefits that only SX OS offers such as HDD support, homebrew and, modded .XCI support to name a few.
You do know that's speculation, not facts, right? I mean I am not even arguing that more people will have a Mig than people had SXOS in its prime. The argument is that it could take only a handful of people to distribute the certs/uids in amounts that exceed what we saw during SXOS's prime.
Oh so now I'm not allowed to speculate but you can? If this ain't the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what is.
You are "licking boots" when you say things like this:
This is how scammers think. This is how people who rip games then sell the carts think, knowing that they are inviting risk to an unsuspecting buyer.
Again, still only your opinion. As I said just because you don't like what is stated doesn't give you the authority to call people names. However I wouldn't expect any less from someone of your "caliber".
You keep going on how you are only stating facts and my opinion is irrelevant. You're an "authority". My opinion is not factual because it's unpopular. Yet, we are still chatting. Most of what you say sounds like, "Nintendo can do whatever it wants." Sorry, if you feel "attacked". You're a bit mixed up. I'm representing my opinion. You are trying to be an authority of the scene and advocating disturbing business practices. Since you are an authority, tell us how many people in your thread reported having a "2124-4025" issue vs system bans. We both know that the data doesn't support your position. That's why you shifted.
If looking up facts using Google makes one an authority, then I guess we're all authorities here. My only claimed expertise is bans because I have data that backups my claims. Out of 251 console bans, 27 of those had gamecard certificate bans which is roughly a 10% incidence rate. Furthermore, those console bans include people who were banned for not using SX OS so the incidence rate is actually much higher. This supports my original claim that
...plenty of people who never got console banned but were banned for a specific game. Some of these people never even touched SX OS so Nintendo is more likely to ban a specific game than you might think.
There was never a shift in my position. That's you failing to come up with a comeback because you have nothing to support your statements nor disprove my position.
The fact is that while Nintendo is still selling cartridges and aren't "digital only" people are interested in them for the same reason there is a second-hand market. Though we might get to the "digital only" future, Nintendo still has to be careful in not undercutting the values of their current customers and adding the quality of "betrayal" to its name.
Again, speculation and a completely different topic. The argument for physical versus digital has them currently coexisting hand-in-hand. Unless something radical happens to one side, its merely a case of maintaining the status quo.
This conveniently ignores people who have legitimate cause to buy secondhand. Why would you ignore such a thing? Seems dishonest. It also misses the point that Nintendo isn't trying to hurt public perception of the brand.
Buying secondhand involves risk because you're not buying from an official reseller. At the cost of a lower cost, any buyer must be willing to accept that they
may not acquire a clean product, regardless of hacking or otherwise. If a person buys a used Switch and its get banned because that person didn't know it was previously hacked, is the buyer or Nintendo at fault? Obviously the seller bears some responsibility but unless the buyer does their research before the purpose,
they accepted the purchase and thus they bear the responsibility once its in their hands. Same logic gets applied to physical games which is why Nintendo issues bans for them. Furthermore, while you consistently bring up Gamestop, do not forget that the secondhand market is also digital which introduces many other factors that can affect your confidence in buying used.
Source
