Gaming Nintendo will lock your Wii U if you don't agree to the new EULA

[WiiCube_2013]

I'm watching the YouTube video but in all honesty guys, I don't give a rats ass about keeping it outdated and if they do the job for me, i.e, autoupdate then I'm happy because I just want to boot up and play.

I don't know of anyone who likes to watch their console downloading/installing an update.

Yeah it's pretty shitty that Nintendo's fucking up their Wii U fanbase (again).

I hope someone with knowledge about the laws and stuff sues the Nintendo for it so that Nintendo learns their lesson.

 

[Ericzander]

Guys, they aren't disabling the hardware. I'm under the impression that the Operating System isn't part of the hardware but rather the software they are licencing to us that they have the legal (though maybe not moral) right to strip from us.

They aren't remotely bricking our consoles. As soon as we cave in and accept the agreement they'll let us back on. The only people that this should negatively affect are people who are doing things that maybe aren't so ethical themselves.

Not saying we don't have the right to get mad since it's targeted mainly to deter hackers and, more importantly, pirates. But can we really get mad at Nintendo for trying to protect themselves?

 

[WiiCube_2013]

Guys, they aren't disabling the hardware. I'm under the impression that the Operating System isn't part of the hardware but rather the software they are licencing to us that they have the legal (though maybe not moral) right to strip from us.

They aren't remotely bricking our consoles. As soon as we cave in and accept the agreement they'll let us back on. The only people that this should negatively affect are people who are doing things that maybe aren't so ethical themselves.

Not saying we don't have the right to get mad since it's targeted mainly to deter hackers and, more importantly, pirates. But can we really get mad at Nintendo for trying to protect themselves?

Not all people who want to keep their Wii U systems hacked are doing it to get games for free, don't forget that with the Wii Mode you can play GameCube games through Nintendont.

Nintendo implying that we only own the licence of the game than the software it's just absurd.

 

[Foxi4]

Guys, they aren't disabling the hardware. I'm under the impression that the Operating System isn't part of the hardware but rather the software they are licencing to us that they have the legal (though maybe not moral) right to strip from us.

That is incorrect. If the hardware can no longer function according to its specification, it's effectively (and unlawfully) disabled. Once you purchase the system, you purchase the whole package, meaning everything that's in the box, including an OS license. You don't have to agree to subsequent EULA changes and you don't have to update. Nintendo is not the licensee of your OS, that's a perpostrous claim - the OS is licensed to you, the owner of the machine.

If Sony or Microsoft did the same thing, the thread would be on fire, but since it's Nintendo doing it then we have apologists popping up immediately. C'mon.

Nintendo implying that we only own the licence of the game than the software it's just absurd.

That's always been the case - you don't own any game you think you own - what you own is a license to use a given number of copies of software. The person who owns the actual game is whoever has the rights to it, you only own the physical medium (if present) and the right to use it. That being said, it does not excuse Nintendo in this situation - you can't randomly lock a user out. The updated license agreement should (and practically always does) pop up prior to the update procedure so that you have the ability to read it and disagree with it if you so deem fit. Nintendo's doing this the other way around and that's unacceptable, a change of licensing terms requires the agreement of both parties.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

The Wii U is a commercial failure and doing this will only make its image look even worse than it is already.

Stop Nintendo, Bad Nintendo! Bad!

 

[mightymuffy]

If Sony or Microsoft did the same thing, the thread would be on fire, but since it's Nintendo doing it then we have apologists popping up immediately. C'mon.

Oh for God's sake laddie, here's me thinking you were actually worthy of arguing with, and you come out with something like that....... and that the practice is unlawful -
The guy that wrote that piece must be pissing himself laughing, clearly a Kotaku-esque click bait job, yet blown even further out of proportion by certain individuals - Sony Ponies especially! Foxi, I am disappoint....

 

[endoverend]

Well that was a stupid click bait.

 

[omgpwn666]

I don't see why anyone cares. Just accept it...

 

[linuxares]

Holy hell, this "Nintendo have the right to do that according to law" and "They aren't!".

It depends on WHERE in the freaking world you mean. In Europe, especially my country this is actually ILLEGAL to do. If I don't want to accept it, I shouldn't need to. Else if I recall correct, I'm allowed to return the system and get my money back. Since it isn't functioning anymore. Plus the "Accept" button doesn't mean jack here. It can be my cat, my grandfather, the alien from mars that pressed it. They can't prove that. So it can be a really nice lawsuit if they try to force disable my system.

 

[Foxi4]

Oh for God's sake laddie, here's me thinking you were actually worthy of arguing with, and you come out with something like that....... and that the practice is unlawful -
The guy that wrote that piece must be pissing himself laughing, clearly a Kotaku-esque click bait job, yet blown even further out of proportion by certain individuals - Sony Ponies especially! Foxi, I am disappoint....

I'm not overblowing the issue. You buy a console that's supposed to function according to specification - if it stops working according to specification then it's considered defective. You already agreed to a license agreement, you don't have to agree to future agreements if you don't feel like it (thus losing the ability to use services and install future updates) and if the update has a new license agreement, you're supposed to be informed about its terms prior to the update, how is that a weird concept to you?

Let me use an abstract example then - you go to a store and you buy a basket. It functions as a basket, you keep your apples in it and you have the right to eat them. Now, someone from the store comes up to you and tells you "there's an upgrade for your basket, we can install it for you now", so you say "alright, I want a better basket, go on". After the installation though, you can't eat your the apples. Why? New license agreement - agree to it or you don't get to eat the apples. Nobody informed you about the new license agreement prior to the update. You wouldn't upgrade if you knew that you can't eat your damned apples.

 

[Frozen_Fish]

If Sony or Microsoft did the same thing, the thread would be on fire, but since it's Nintendo doing it then we have apologists popping up immediately. C'mon.

What? Most of the people ITT are decrying it, there's one poster who doesn't care and one apologist who's conceded it's legal but not morally justified.

Apologists for anti-consumer bullshit aren't unique to Nintendo, see the petition to bring back the Xbone DRM for instance that received over 25,000 signatures, or Sony fanboys who suddenly think paid online is fine despite shitting on Xbox fanboys for the very same thing a generation earlier, or ask certain steam users about how countries taking Valve to court for consumer rights violations will mean the end of steam sales.

 

[Vipera]

I can't help but feel some sort of deja vu...

 

[Foxi4]

What? Most of the people ITT are decrying it, there's one poster who doesn't care and one apologist who's conceded it's legal but not morally justified.

Apologists for anti-consumer bullshit aren't unique to Nintendo, see the petition to bring back the Xbone DRM for instance that received over 25,000 signatures, or Sony fanboys who suddenly think paid online is fine despite shitting on Xbox fanboys for the very same thing a generation earlier, or ask certain steam users about how countries taking Valve to court for consumer rights violations will mean the end of steam sales.

To be fair, I myself didn't dislike everything about Microsoft's original Always Online plan - it promised several features that I found interesting and beneficial for the industry, such as digital content trading, the family plan and more. I can understand how some people would want those features back. I don't live under a rock, I'd be perfectly okay if my system was always connected to the Internet because my main consoles already are online 24/7 - it wouldn't affect me in any way and it would provide numerous perks that come with such a solution. I suppose the world wasn't ready for that though.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

I agree with Foxi4 and I think it's a horrible thing to do locking people out like this. We'll have to wait and see what comes out of it, it might not be so bad.

 

[Foxi4]

I agree with Foxi4 and I think it's a horrible thing to do locking people out like this. We'll have to wait and see what comes out of it, it might not be so bad.

I expect an apology along the lines of "Please Understand" and nothing more, it was probably a mistake on their part, or they're just testing the grounds to see if people will get upset over something like this. Either way, that's not a good way to introduce an update - a forward warning is pretty much the industry standard, if not a legal requirement (I'm no expert, I only go by experience).

 

[smf]

How is this legal? I bought the system, thus I own it and can do what I want with it.

It doesn't matter whether it's legal unless you are willing to go to court. Then the court will make a decision on whether it's legal and if they decide it is then they will be able to answer your question as to how it is legal. A lawyer may be able to offer you advice on what the court will decide, but lawyers aren't always right. You won't find a conclusive answer on a forum.

This would be like if I bought a yellow house from someone and painted it blue. Then the old owners came back and pained it yellow again, but then set the house on fire because they wanted it yellow.

Houses often come with restrictive covenants. It would be perfectly possible for someone to add one that said you had to keep it painted yellow. They wouldn't be allowed to set it on fire, but they could sue you.

With the house purchase you are entering into a legally enforceable contract though, which the EULA is unlikely to be. Updates on a games console are likely to be installed by children, which in most countries cannot be sued for breach of contract.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

I expect an apology along the lines of "Please Understand" and nothing more, it was probably a mistake on their part, or they're just testing the grounds to see if people will get upset over something like this. Either way, that's not a good way to introduce an update - a forward warning is pretty much the industry standard, if not a legal requirement (I'm no expert, I only go by experience).

Well, a "Please Understand" and with Satoru Iwata stepping down from his position would be a good move from Nintendo.

 

[Foxi4]

It doesn't matter whether it's legal unless you are willing to go to court. Then the court will make a decision on whether it's legal and if they decide it is then they will be able to answer your question as to how it is legal. A lawyer may be able to offer you advice on what the court will decide, but lawyers aren't always right. You won't find a conclusive answer on a forum.

Killing an old lady is also illegal, but don't worry - if she doesn't have any family that could sue you, it's okay. Nah, that's not how the world works - consumer laws exist for a reason and once complaint is all it takes for appropriate government bodies to take action. Your rights as a consumer are protected by more than just what you think is right.

Houses often come with restrictive covenants. It would be perfectly possible for someone to add one that said you had to keep it painted yellow. They wouldn't be allowed to set it on fire, but they could sue you.

If you rent a house, yes. If you buy it, no. Once you buy a house, you own it from top to bottom and you can blow it up for all the previous owner cares because it's legally yours. You don't rent a system, you own it - that's the difference between goods and services.

 

[JoostinOnline]

This is basically what happens when you first set up your system, isn't it?

 

[smf]

Killing an old lady is also illegal, but don't worry - if she doesn't have any family that could sue you, it's okay. Nah, that's not how the world works

Murder is a criminal offence, which is entirely different. The police will arrest you for that. This is a civil case where it's up to you to take action.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law

You can complain to the FTC and they may take action if they deem it's worthwhile. That is pretty much the only consumer protection you have. If you bought it on a credit card then you could try getting a refund from them.

If you rent a house, yes. If you buy it, no. Once you buy a house, you own it from top to bottom and you can blow it up for all the previous owner cares because it's legally yours.

You don't know what you're talking about. Covenants are real and are legally enforceable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Restrictive_covenant

"In property law, land-related covenants are called "real covenants" and are a major form of covenant, typically imposing restrictions on how the land may be used (negative covenants) or requiring a certain continuing action (affirmative covenant). "


"These CCRs might, for example, dictate building materials (including roofing materials), prohibit certain varieties of trees, or place restrictions on the number of dwellings that may be built on the property. The purpose of this is to maintain a neighborhood character or prevent improper use of the land. Many covenants of this nature were imposed in the 1920s through the 1940s, before zoning became widespread. However, many modern developments are also restricted by covenants on property titles; this is often justified as a means of preserving the values of the houses in the area. Covenant restrictions can be removed through court action, although this process is lengthy and often very expensive. In some cases it even involves a plebiscite of nearby property owners. Although control of such planning issues is often governed by local planning schemes or other regulatory frameworks rather than through the use of covenants, there are still many covenants imposed, particularly in states that limit the level of control over real property use that may be exercised by local governments."