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

[Arras]

The WiiU updates don't have an EULA popup on attempting an update like the 3DS does? Huh.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

The WiiU updates don't have an EULA popup on attempting an update like the 3DS does? Huh.

I think they do but I never read them. lol how silly of me.

 

[Ryanrocks462]

i don't get it who cares about the eula i mean tbh who actually reads it

 

[Arras]

I think they do but I never read them. lol how silly of me.

If they do though, you already accepted the new EULA the moment you clicked "update". It shouldn't even be necessary for this screen to exist if the user already agreed.

 

[Foxi4]

Murder is a criminal offence, which is entirely different. The police will arrest you for that.

Yes, the police will arrest you for that because it's the government body responsible for that section of the law. If you committed tax fraud, you would also face consequences, except this time it would be the IRS on your back. Each section of the law has different government representatives enforcing it.

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."

In such cases you are informed about the stipulations prior to purchase because they may directly influence whether or not you will buy the property. Once you've bought the property, no additional stipulations apply unless you agree to them. The previous owner can't pop up and change the stipulations on you without you agreeing to them.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

i don't get it who cares about the eula i mean tbh who actually reads it

People should read the EULA but hardly anyone does and when that one person does, he/she informs the rest and then they start rambling about it that it's not fair what they're doing.

 

[Rocc0]

https://tosdr.org/

 

[mightymuffy]

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.

Some fair (opinionated) points, it is rather draconian I'll agree, as is the fact that it's presented to you after the download - in my opinion also a bit naughty of them but - it's - still - legal! (regardless of your opinion on the matter, read up about it if you must), and until we see reports of this actually happening - click-bait! Now if we do see this rule being taken into effect then by all means pass me a pitchfork and lead the way!
And I might add, regarding your "if this were Sony or MS" - I'd have the exact same opinion if they did it in the same way too! You're basing your statement on the opinions of a select few feckin-eejit pro Ninty members on here that we could both name a handful of.

 

[JoostinOnline]

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.

It's usually the other way around. It's like when someone realized that they lost online access if they didn't update and said it was a new thing (even though it had been there since the Wii U was first released), people went insane about how "evil" Nintendo was being. IIRC, you had your own torch and pitchfork. That's something that Microsoft and Sony had done for, what, 8 years? But nobody cared.

Was this a dick thing to do? Yes. Was it illegal? No.

 

[Foxi4]

That's something that Microsoft and Sony had done for, what, 8 years? But nobody cared.

Sevices =/= Goods. Not a single update has ever prevented my PS3 from working or running software before I agree to a new EULA and when there is an EULA update, it's presented to me before the update installs - that's the way it should be done. Yes, you can't use PSN if you don't keep the system up-to-date - PSN is a service though, it's not an inseparable function of the system. I'd wager Microsoft handles it the same way, but I wouldn't know.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Sevices =/= Goods. Not a single update has ever prevented my PS3 from working or running software before I agree to a new EULA and when there is an EULA update, it's presented to me before the update installs - that's the way it should be done. Yes, you can't use PSN if you don't keep the system up-to-date - PSN is a service though, it's not an inseparable function of the system. I'd wager Microsoft handles it the same way, but I wouldn't know.

Did you even read my post? I was talking about another instance. You've proven in the past that you get mad just because Nintendo is doing something.

Nobody likes this. However, it's not an entirely new concept, since that's what companies have made you do for a long time when you first set up the system. Everyone is used to having to agree to a EULA before being able to use their system.

 

[Foxi4]

Did you even read my post? I was talking about another instance. You've proven in the past that you get mad just because Nintendo is doing something.

Only when they're doing something I consider stupid, which occurs pretty often as of late. I'm optimistic about the good stuff though.

Nobody likes this. However, it's not an entirely new concept, since that's what companies have made you do for a long time when you first set up the system. Everyone is used to having to agree to a EULA before being able to use their system.

Before using a system? Sure. Before using an update with no forward warning? Well, I don't know about that.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Only when they're doing something I consider stupid, which occurs pretty often as of late. I'm optimistic about the good stuff though.

Except the "stupid" thing you are referring to had been normal for almost a decade. It didn't matter though, because it was Nintendo, and so it was way worse that they were doing exactly what Microsoft and Sony had been doing for an entire generation.

Before using a system? Sure. Before using an update with no forward warning? Well, I don't know about that.

I said "not entirely new" for a reason. I believe my exact reaction after updating was "Wait, they're making me agree to a EULA after updating? That's lame." I scanned it (it's basically the same as the old one), agreed to it, then got busy organizing my 4 pages of games into folders.

 

[Foxi4]

Except the "stupid" thing you are referring to had been normal for almost a decade. It didn't matter though, because it was Nintendo, and so it was way worse that they were doing exactly what Microsoft and Sony had been doing for an entire generation.

Haven't done so once as far as I remember, I spent an entire post explaining why the agreement should pop up before the installation to give you the opportunity to decline - you must've skipped that part. That's the only reason why I was upset.

I said "not entirely new" for a reason. I believe my exact reaction after updating was "Wait, they're making me agree to a EULA after updating? That's lame." I scanned it (it's basically the same as the old one), agreed to it, then got busy organizing my 4 pages of games into folders.

That is indeed very lame, and in my eyes not okay.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Haven't done so once as far as I remember, I spent an entire post explaining why the agreement should pop up before the installation to give you the opportunity to decline - you must've skipped that part. That's the only reason why I was upset.

Again, I was talking about when you thought Nintendo had just introduced an "update or no online" policy.

 

[Foxi4]

Again, I was talking about when you thought Nintendo had just introduced an "update or no online" policy.

Direct me to that post, I don't think I've ever said anything of that nature. I've never been surprised or offended over "no update = no online", online services are just that - services. Unlike goods, they're bound by the Terms of Service. I would never be upset over a provider not allowing me to use a service when I'm not following its terms, you must be confusing me with someone else or you've misunderstood me.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Direct me to that post, I don't think I've ever said anything of that nature. I've never been surprised or offended over "no update = no online", online services are just that - services. Unlike goods, they're bound by the Terms of Service. I would never be upset over a provider not allowing me to use a service when I'm not following its terms, you must be confusing me with someone else or you've misunderstood me.

I don't feel like checking, but I could easily be wrong about you thinking it was new and being against it. I'll take your word for it. The poster was a troll btw, I let him now via PM that it was a day 1 thing and he didn't care.

Anyway, back to this topic. Just for emphasis on my thoughts, I'll repost what I said before:
Was this a dick thing to do? Yes. Was it illegal? No.

 

[smf]

In such cases you are informed about the stipulations prior to purchase because they may directly influence whether or not you will buy the property. Once you've bought the property, no additional stipulations apply unless you agree to them. The previous owner can't pop up and change the stipulations on you without you agreeing to them.

No, but a document could turn up that the previous owners failed to provide you which was written by the owners before them. Which is what covenant indemnity insurance is for.

You don't have to agree to them, you automatically did when you purchased the property. They wouldn't survive if you could wipe them out by selling to someone who didn't know about it, if you wanted to get rid of it you'd just sell it to someone on the promise they would sell it back to you and you wouldn't disclose the covenant.

The EULA you agreed to when you first used the console probably had enough wiggle room to cover what they are doing, if you didn't want to agree to it you should have immediately returned it to the shop as not fit for purpose.

You can either put pressure on Nintendo or sue them, but the EULA is unlikely to have anything in it that consumer groups would have a problem with. It's usually about piracy or hacking and they won't usually care about that as it's not the advertised purpose when it's sold (which is all Nintendo have to provide). The EFF is likely to have the best chance of success.

 

[T Link7]

Oh boo-hoo. The only reason people are complaining about this is because it lessens the chance of them being able to play ''homebrew'' on the Wii U. You damn cheapskates brought this upon yourselves with the 3DS.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

I checked for the latest firmware update on my Wii U but it's already with the newest, so I guess that I'm already part of it. Fine by me.