The safest option is to just stop going online at all, but if you must go online turn all streetpass, spotpass, and download stuff off, and only turn the Wifi switch on once you have the DSTwo running.
Meh. I use it all the time nothing happens. People like you guys worry too much.
It's a general rule that works almost globally - you are only bound to follow the terms of a contract that were part of it during the moment of signing, any subsequent changes to the contract require the consent of all participating parties.
"The contract may have said that the credit card issuer could change the interest rate at its discretion. By signing the initial contract, you've already given the credit card issuer the right to make future changes"
"We can update your 3DS at our discretion, by signing the initial contract, you've already given us the right to make future changes"
I'm pretty sure we agreed to that somewhere when we turned our 3DS on
Agreed to what, bricking?
As it was said countless times before, Terms of Use refer to services, not physical devices. Nintendo cannot (and will not) brick systems simply because it's illegal for them to do so. They may at worst deny you access to Nintendo Network.
I'm not talking about bricking. I'm only talking about this
Laws in the US/UK don't allow changes without consent.
It's misleading. Then I'd like to know in what law is it specified that Nintendo is not allowed to brick your console. I, too, believe they aren't allowed to do so. But I am simply going off of common sense and I'd like to see it stated on some official document the fact they are not allowed to render a console inoperable if it is being used in violation of the EULA
Because they don't. They don't allow changes to contracts without written consent.
If you've consented to changing of any fees whatsoever then the contract hasn't been changed in any way - the fees have and you have previously consented to any and all changes of fees. The actual contact proper remains the same.
It would be entirely different if one of the parties would like to add something new to the contract, something that was not agreed upon initially, in which case the contract has to be signed again.
Take note of the wording. "(...) any existing or future unauthorized technical modification (...) or the use of an unauthorized device (...) may render the system permanently unplayable" - who are the Agents in this sentence? I know it's semantics, but it matters.
The Agents of the sentence are "unauthorized technical modifications" and "the use of an unauthorized device" and it's the Agents that may render the system inoperable.
This is Nintendo's way of saying that "if you jam a soggy piece of toast into your system, your system may stop working because it wasn't designed to work with soggy toasts".
If you modify your system and a future update changes some of the inner workings, this modification is not accounted for by the update and as such it may render the system inoperable with the modification at fault (See: Certain Wii updates which bricked modified systems not because they were designed to brick them but because the modifications protected some IOS'es from being overwritten, resulting in an incomplete update and subsequently a brick).
Nintendo is not the Agent of that sentence - they are not reserving the right to brick your system, they're saying that updating a modified system may result in a brick because the update was not designed to work on modified systems.
I was aware of that. Of course Nintendo would never come out and say "we'll brick your console if you do this" and would rather leave it up to careful wordplay as to not offend too many users.
What if Nintendo intentionally bricks the consoles detected to use unauthorized devices but then blames it on the update? It could be a legitimate update that adds features for normal users but kills the 3DS of those doing things they "aren't allowed" to do.
Even by some miracle someone discovers that Nintendo deliberately bricked your 3DS, it wouldn't matter because at the end of everything, you consented to it.
This has all been discussed previously in the thread.
No, you haven't at any point consented to damaging your goods for not following Terms of Use which refer to services.
The goods you buy in a store are yours and yours only, you own them and you can do whatever you want with them within the limits of law. Don't mistake partaking in a service (Nintendo Network, eShop, a warranty program etc.) and ownership which are two very different things.
Breaking the Terms of Use/Service can result in voiding your warranty or getting banned from Online functionality as these are services and they are based upon their Terms of Use/Service which you have to follow in order to participate in them, but it cannot result in any form of damage to your private property which is protected by law.
As far as detectability is concerned, a simple trial and error demonstration would be enough to prove that Nintendo is at fault and you would be able to receive hefty compensation. Not only that, Nintendo would also be in violation of the law in many-a-countries and would likely drown in a lawsuit Tsunami.
EDIT: Just to add further clarification, the moment your currency is being exchanged for a system (or any kind of goods, actually) in a store, the ownership rights are legally transferred to you. From that point onwards, you legally own the system even before it's out of the box and you are protected by the law until you choose to sell the system and transfer the ownership rights to someone else.
Any intentional damage done to the system by any third party is a violation of the law, regardless of what the Terms of Use or Terms of Service state as using goods you own is simply your right. Long story short, rendering a system inoperable is simply against the law.
Using a more abstract example will probably clarify the issue further in terms of the wording.
If I were a bicycle salesman and I added a clause stating that "the use of unauthorized accessories may cause the bicycle to malfunction and lead to injury" to all my store receipts and then hired a thug to smack people in the knee to make them fall off their bicycles if they do use accessories bought from other stores, I would clearly be in violation of the law.
An "unauthorized" bicycle bell was not the cause of anyone's injuries - the injuries were quite obviously caused by the thug batting people in their knees. My clause does not protect me in any way because it's not the "unauthorized accessories" that were the cause of injuries, it was me and my thug.
To add an example to the above, when Sony removed OtherOS from the PS3, people who bought it were granted partial refunds in the UK (since it no longer did everything that was advertised).
http://www.ps3news.com/PlayStation-3/european-law-grants-partial-refund-due-to-ps3-otheros-removal/
Though the refunds are the responsibility of the shop that sold it, and not Sony, and Sony refused to reimburse shops that were required to give the partial refunds.
Also unfortunately the US has no automatic protections like this, so people who want to take issue with it in the US have to put in a suit, which is likely going to cost way more than the PS3 itself, so...
http://www.ps3news.com/PlayStation-3/european-law-grants-partial-refund-due-to-ps3-otheros-removal/
Though the refunds are the responsibility of the shop that sold it, and not Sony, and Sony refused to reimburse shops that were required to give the partial refunds.
Also unfortunately the US has no automatic protections like this, so people who want to take issue with it in the US have to put in a suit, which is likely going to cost way more than the PS3 itself, so...
Similar threads
-
The Real Jdbye
*is birb* -
Psionic Roshambo
-
-
@
The Real Jdbye:
i think i heard of that, it's a good idea, shouldn't need a dedicated GPU just to run a LLM or video upscaling
-
-
-
@
BakerMan:
Have you ever been beaten by a wet spaghetti noodle by your girlfriend because she has a twin sister, and you got confused and fucked her dad? -
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I had a girlfriend who had a twin sister and they would mess with me constantly.... Until one chipped a tooth then finally I could tell them apart.... Lol
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
They would have the same hair style the same clothes everything... Really messed with my head lol
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
@The Real Jdbye, I could see AMD trying to pull off the CPU GPU tandem thing, would be a way to maybe close the gap a bit with Nvidia. Plus it would kinda put Nvidia at a future disadvantage since Nvidia can't make X86/64 CPUs? Intel and AMD licensing issues... I wonder how much that has held back innovation.
-
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Yeah I think Nvidia s future lays in AI GPU acceleration stuff if they can get that going it's going to be super interesting in the long term
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
"OK Cortana I want that mountain a little taller and more snow on top, and I would like some random ancient pine forest around the bottom"
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
"Now we need a spring fed river flowing down the north side and add some wild life appropriate for the biome"
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Many TBs of assets and the programming of something like that is going to be tough but I think it's something we might see in 20 years maybe sooner
-
@
The Real Jdbye:
@Psionic Roshambo AI assisted game creation is kinda already here, there was recently that AI that can turn any 2D image into a fully modeled 3D object, it's not perfect, but it's a starting point, beats starting from zero
-
-
@
The Real Jdbye:
but most recently, there was one that actually generates a working unity scene with terrain and textures already set up that you can import right into unity, that's a huge time saver right there
-
@
The Real Jdbye:
and using LLMs to generate NPC dialogue and even dynamically generated quests is something i'm sure is already happening
-
@
The Real Jdbye:
will just take some time for games made using those things to be completed and released
@
The Real Jdbye:
will just take some time for games made using those things to be completed and released